Kulikov battle in the light of the myth of the "Mongolian" yoke


September 21 celebrates the Day of Military Glory of Russia - Victory Day of the Russian regiments led by Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy over the troops of the temnik of the Golden Horde Mamaia in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 year. It was established by Federal Law No. 32-FZ of March 13 of 1995 of the Year “On Days of Military Glory and Memorable Dates of Russia”.


It is worth noting that the battle itself on the Kulikovo Field took place 8 in the old style, that is, 16 of September - in a new, but officially, the Day of Military Glory is celebrated on 21 of September. These are the costs of transferring dates from the old to the new. When setting the date, the rule was not taken into account: when translating 14 dates of a century, 8 days are added to the old style. They added according to the rules of the Russian Orthodox Church 13 days (according to church chronology, when transferring dates from the old style to the new century, 13 days are always added, regardless of the century when it happened). Because of these inconsistencies in the calendars, it turns out that the correct calendar anniversary of the battle falls on September 16, and the state and Orthodox celebration remains on September 21.

The crisis of the Horde empire. The confrontation of Mamaia and Dmitry

In the period that preceded the Kulikov Battle, the Horde Empire was in a stage of destruction. In Russia, this time called the "Great Zamyatnya." For two decades in the Horde, 25 khans changed. The dynastic crisis caused by intra-elite struggle contributed to the political and military weakening of the Horde. It was commonplace that there were two kings in the Horde at once, and sometimes more. In the Horde the grandee Mamai, who did not belong to the royal family (Chingizid), became the most powerful man. The kings with him turned into puppets, which Mamai changed at their discretion. In Russia, this situation was realized very clearly. The khan, on whose behalf Mamai ruled, could have been scornfully called "Mamayev the king", it was explicitly said that Mamai "seated the king of his friend in Ordha." The sovereignty of temnik is especially emphasized in the following chronicle characteristics: "... the king did not own anything, but he kept Mamai in any old history"; "To some one, they have a loosening of the Tsar, but all of them are to Prince Mamai." It was noted that Temnik Mamai "beat many kings and princes and set himself a king according to his will."

Thus, for more than a decade, the government of the Horde was in a crisis state by 1374: the kings most often did not have real power, it belonged to the usurper, and those who showed self-will quickly died. That is, the Horde empire, of which Russia was a part, quickly moved toward its collapse. And the Islamization of the Horde only aggravated this process. At the same time, Mamai was hostile to Moscow, the recently strengthened military-political center of Russia. Dmitry Ivanovich successfully fought with Tver, Lithuania, arbitrarily built an impregnable stone Kremlin. In response, Mamai tried to transfer the great reign to Mikhail of Tver.

As a result, Moscow decided, apparently, in response to a monetary "request", to break and not to comply with the illegal, unreliable in terms of supporting the Grand Duke and also not controlling the entire territory of the Horde vassal relations ruler. In fact, Moscow did not oppose the “tsar”, but the “usurper” Mamaia.

In the 1370 year, when Mamai issued a label for the great reign of Vladimirskoye to Michael of Tver, Dmitry gathered troops and openly did not obey the requirements of the ambassador who came with Mikhail from the Horde: “I don’t eat the label; the path is clear. " As a result, Mamai conceded, in exchange for tribute. In 1374, temnik Mamai again tried to influence Dmitry through Mikhail Tversky, giving him a second label. Dmitry organized a campaign of the united forces of North-Eastern Russia, as well as Smolyan, to Tver. Michael recognized himself as Dmitriy's younger brother, that is, a subordinate prince.

In 1376, Dmitry sent the squad, led by Dmitry Bobrok, to Volga Bulgaria, which was controlled by Mamaia. The voivode took over from the mom's henchmen and put the Russian customs officers. In the same year, Dmitry went far beyond the Oka, "being careful of the Tatar ratification." In 1377, the Moscow-Suzdal army under the command of Prince Ivan Dmitrievich, due to neglect of discipline, was destroyed by the khan Arab-shah. Horde ravaged Nizhny Novgorod. In 1378, Mamai sent 5 tumens (cavalry corps) led by Begic to Moscow, but they suffered a severe defeat on the river Vozhe. Russian troops commanded by Dmitry Ivanovich. The fact that the Horde four princes and Begich himself (all the leaders of the Horde corps) were killed in the battle says that the Horde troops were seriously defeated. The victorious battle of Voge became the dress rehearsal for the Kulikovo battle.

Bits

Mamai, angry with the willfulness of Moscow, decided to organize a large-scale campaign against Russia. He did not give rest to the laurels of Batu Khan. He "ascended in his mind with great pride, he wanted to capture the whole Russian land as the second king Batu." Therefore, he did not confine himself to collecting his troops (he controlled the western part of the Horde), detachments of princes and nobles subject to him, but "rati hired besomemen and Armenians, fryes, Circassians, Yases and Burtases". That is, Mamai raised the militia of subordinate tribes in the Volga region, in the Caucasus, hired Italians (fryas). With the Genoese, who nestled in the Crimea, Mamai had a good relationship. In addition, Mamai entered into an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian ruler Jagiello and Prince of Ryazan Oleg. The lands of Ryazan had just been ravaged by the troops of Mamai and he could not refuse.

In the summer, a huge army of Mamai (his number from various sources determined from 60 to 300 thousand soldiers) crossed the Volga and approached the mouth of Voronezh. Having received the news of the impending invasion, the Moscow Prince Dmitry was on the alert and was preparing for a confrontation. Dmitry Ivanovich began "to collect a lot of armies and a great force, connecting with the Russian princes and the local princes who were under him." A “strong watchman” was sent to the steppe, which followed the movement of the enemy.

In Moscow at this time were collected significant forces. The gathering of all forces was appointed in Kolomna, from there it was easy to cover any place on the southern boundary. Moscow gathered a huge army. The chronicles report 200 thousand people and even "400 thousand horse and foot warriors". It is clear that these figures are greatly overestimated. Later researchers (E. A. Razin and others), having counted the total number of the population of the Russian principalities, taking into account the principle of manning troops and other factors, believed that 50 — 60 thousands of soldiers had gathered under Dmitry's banners.

In Kolomna, Dmitry Ivanovich reviewed the troops, divided it into five regiments, and appointed a governor. The Russian army from Kolomna passed along the Oka, to the mouth of the river Lopasni. Here they were in a hurry "all the war residuals." 30 August Russian army crossed the Oka and moved to the Don. September 5 Russians came to the Don, to the mouth of the river Nepryadva. In the village of Chernov, a military council was held, at which they decided to move to the other side of the Don. September 6 on the five bridges began crossing the Don. On the night of September 7, the last Russian regiments crossed the Don River and destroyed bridges behind them so that no one would think about retreat.

On the morning of September 7, the Russian regiments went to Kulikovo Field, between Don and Nepryadva. Russian governors built shelves for the battle. Ahead was a strong guard regiment of Seeds Melik, who had already entered combat contact with the advanced forces of the enemy. Mamay was already on the Gusyny ford, in 8-9 km from the mouth of the Nepryadva. Melik sent messengers to Prince Dmitry, so that our regiments would have time to "keep silent so that the vile ones would not preempt them."

In the center stood a large regiment and the entire court of the Moscow prince rose. They were commanded by the Moscow okolnichy Timofey Vel'yaminov. Before the beginning of the battle, Dmitry Donskoy, dressed in the clothes and armor of a simple warrior, stood in the ranks of the warriors, exchanging clothes with his favorite Mikhail Brenok (Bryanka). At the same time, Dmitry stood in the first line. On the wings were a regiment of the right hand under the command of the Lithuanian Prince Andrei Olgerdovich and the regiment of the left hand of the princes Vasily Yaroslavsky and Theodore Molozhsky. In front of the big regiment was the advanced regiment of princes Simeon Obolensky and Ivan Tarusa. An ambush regiment led by Vladimir Andreevich and Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok-Volynsky was set up in the forest up the Don. These were selected warriors with the best governors of the Russian land. According to the traditional version, the ambush regiment stood in an oak grove next to the regiment of the left hand, but, in “Zadonshchina” it is said about the strike of the ambush regiment with the right hand.

On the morning of September 8 there was a strong fog, "the darkness is great over the whole earth, like darkness." When the hours to 11 in the morning the fog cleared, Dmitry Ivanovich "commanded his regiments to perform, and suddenly the Tatar force went from the hills." The Russian and Horde formations, bristling with spears, turned against each other, "and there was no place where they would part ... And it was terrible to see two great forces converging on bloodshed, to be soon killed ...".

According to “The Tale of Mamayev’s Battle” (other sources do not report it), the battle began with the traditional fight of the best fighters. The famous Chelubey (Temir-Bey, Temir-Murza) fight with Alexander Peresvet took place. Two warriors "hit hard, so loud and hard that the earth shook and both fell to the ground dead." After that, around the 12 clock, the shelves “stepped down”.

The terrain conditions did not allow the commanders of Mamai to use their favorite tactics — flank grapples and strikes. I had to attack in the forehead when the power is breaking power. “And there was a strong battle, and cutting evil, and blood flowed like water, and the dead fell countless from both sides ... everywhere a lot of dead lay, and horses could not walk on the dead. Not only weapons they killed, but also died under horse legs, from the cramped greatness of the great ... "

The main blow of the troops Mamaia fell on the center and the left flank of the Russian army. In the center and on the left flank there was a “foot Russian great army”, city regiments and militia peasants. The losses of the infantry were enormous. According to the chronicler, the infantry, "lay mowed like hay." Horde could somewhat press a large regiment, but he withstood. The regiment of the right hand not only withstood, but was ready to attack. But seeing that the left flank and center were being crowded, Andrei Olgerdovich did not break the line. Seeing that the Russian center survived, the Horde sent reinforcements to their right flank. “And here the foot army, like a tree, broke, and how the hay was cut, and it was scary to see it, and the Tatars began to prevail.” The regiment of the left hand began to push back to Nepryadva. The Horde cavalry had already triumphed and began to bypass the left flank of a large regiment.

And at that critical moment an ambush regiment hit. More hot Vladimir Serpukhovskoy offered to strike earlier, but the wise governor Bobrok kept him. Only at 3 one o'clock in the afternoon, when the wind blew in the direction of the Horde, and the entire Horde army got involved in the battle and Mamaia did not have large reserves, Bobrok said: "The prince, the hour has come!" flank and rear of the enemy. That part of the Horde army, which was in the depths of the Russian system, was destroyed, the rest of the Horde were driven back to Red Hill, the place of the headquarters of Mamai. This was the beginning of a general Horde pogrom. The rest of the Russian regiments, having raised their spirits, drove the enemy along the whole front.

Many Horde people were killed during the persecution. According to various estimates, the army of Mamai lost from half to three-quarters of its composition. Mamai escaped with her bodyguards. But that was his end. Taking advantage of his defeat, Mamaia on the Kalka River finished off Khan Tokhtamysh from the Blue Horde. Mamai fled to the Crimea, hoping to hide from the Genoese, but he was killed there.

The great Prince of Moscow and Vladimir Dmitry Ivanovich was found among the heaps of the dead. He was severely beaten, barely breathing. Eight days stood by the Russian army beyond the Don, "on the bones." Expensive price went to this victory of Russia. The Russian army lost from one third to one half of all the soldiers.

Jagiello, given that the Russians made up most of his army (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russian consisted of three-quarters of the Russian lands), did not dare to fight in battle with Dmitry Donskoy and turned back. According to the chronicler: “Prince Yagailo with all his strength Lithuanian ran back with great speed. Then he did not see either the prince of the great, neither his ratification, nor his weapon, but he was afraid of the name and trembling. ”

The victory of Moscow was great, but the Horde was still a mighty empire. The time for changing the political center in the North has not yet come. Therefore, already in 1382, the city of Tokhtamysh easily came to Moscow and, because of internal turmoil in the city, took a fortress. Dmitry at this time was trying to collect troops. Many Russian cities and villages were subjected to defeat. Tokhtamysh left "with innumerable wealth and innumerable full back home." Dmitry Donskoy defeated his rivals, made Moscow the most powerful center of North-Eastern Russia, but he had to recognize dependence on the Horde.

Kulikov battle in the light of the myth of the "Mongolian" yoke


Kulikov battle in the light of the myth of the invasion of the "Mongol-Tatars"

Taking into account recent research (including in the field of genetics), it is obvious that there are no “Mongolo-Tatars” in Russia of the 13th — 15th centuries. did not have. This is a myth invented by foreigners who rewrote history humanity and Russia to their advantage. The Romanov dynasty, representatives of which were mostly oriented towards the West, European culture, accepted this myth by rejecting the “Asian” (Scythian, Hyperborean) roots of the Russian state. In this historical myth, the center of humanity, of all achievements and benefits, is Europe (West). And Russia is a wild, semi-Asian suburb of Europe, which all borrowed from the West or the East.

Mongols in Russia in large numbers then was not! The Mongols are Mongoloids. And Russian and modern "Tatars" (Bulgars- "Volgari") are Europoids. Neither in Kiev, nor in the Vladimir-Suzdal, nor in the Ryazan lands of that era did they find the skulls of the Mongoloids. But there thundered bloody and brutal battles. People died in the thousands. If numerous Mongolian tumens were passed through Russia, then traces would remain both in archaeological excavations and the genetics of the local population. And they are not! Although Mongoloid dominant, overwhelming. Of course, Western Russophobes and their township hangers-on in the Ukraine, Ukraine would like to see in the Moskals a mixture of Asians and Finno-Ugrians. But genetic studies show that Russians are typical Europoids. And in the Russian burials of the time of the “Mongolian” Horde lie Caucasians.

Mongoloid in Russia appeared only in the XVI-XVII centuries. together with the service Tatars, who themselves being originally Caucasians, acquired it on the eastern frontiers. They served without women and married local women. In addition, it is obvious that no Mongolians could overcome the distance from Mongolia to Ryazan, despite the beautiful stories about interchangeable hardy Mongolian horses. Therefore, countless novels, paintings, and then films about the terrible "Mongolian" horsemen in the vast Russian land - all this is a myth.

Mongolia is still a sparsely populated, undeveloped corner of the world community. It used to be even worse. All the empires that dominated the planet militarily always had a powerful industrial base. Modern USA - the world economic leader. Germany, which unleashed two world wars, possessed a powerful industry and a "dark Teutonic genius." The British Empire created the largest colonial empire and was the “workshop of the world”. Napoleon crushed a large part of Europe. The invincible phalanx of Alexander the Great relied on a strong industrial base, which was created by his father Philip.

How did the wild Mongols, who lived almost in primitive conditions, captured almost half the world? The then leading powers - China, Khorezm, Russia - were crushed by themselves, they ruined the Caucasus, half of Europe, crushed Persia and Ottoman Turks. They talk about the Mongolian iron discipline, the organization of the army, excellent archers. However, iron discipline was in all armies. The decimal organization of the army — ten, hundred, one thousand, ten thousand (darkness tumen), has been characteristic of the Russian army since ancient times. Russian complex bow was much more powerful and better, not only Mongolian simple bow, but also English. In Mongolia of that time, there simply was no production base that could arm and support a large and powerful army. Steppe savages living in cattle breeding, hunters in mountain forests, simply could not become metallurgists, professional warriors for one generation. It takes centuries.

There was no "Mongol" invasion. But the invasion itself was, there were battles, burned cities. Who fought? The answer is simple. According to the Russian concept of history (its representatives are Lomonosov, Tatishchev, Klassen, Veltman, Ilovaisky, Lyubavsky, Petukhov and many others.) Russia did not appear out of nowhere "out of the swamps" and under the guidance of "German princes" (Vikings), but was direct successor to Sarmatia, Scythia and Hyperborea. Huge forest-steppe spaces from the Northern Black Sea region through the Volga region and the Southern Urals to Altai, the Sayans and Mongolia (right up to the Pacific Ocean and North China), which were inhabited by the “Mongols”, were inhabited by Europoids. They were known by the names of Aryans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Juns (“red-haired devils”), Huns (Huns), Dinlins, etc.

Long before the last wave of the Aryans, who in 2 thousand BC. er left the Northern Black Sea region to Persia and India, the Indo-Europeoids, mastered the forest-steppe zone from the Carpathians to the Sayans and beyond, influenced the folding of Chinese and Japanese civilizations. They led a semi-nomadic way of life, moved on oxen, and knew how to cultivate the land. It was in the southern Russian forests that the horse was tamed. Throughout Scythia, many burial mounds with carts, weapons, and rich utensils remained. It was these people who became famous as the great warriors who created the great powers and crushed their opponents. Huge generations of “Scythians” -Europeoids, who were in the early Middle Ages the military elite of Transbaikalia, Khakassia and Mongolia (hence the legend of the Russian Federation and the blue-eyed Temuchin-Genghis Khan), and were the only military force that could conquer China, Central Asia and other lands. Only the "Scythians" had a production base that allowed them to equip powerful armies.

Later, these Caucasians dissolved in the Mongoloid mass (the dominant Mongoloid genes). So after the Civil War in Russia, thousands of Russians fled to China. But they are not there now. In the second, third generation, all became Chinese. Some of these Indo-Europeans gave birth to the Turks, who retained in their legends the memory of the blond, blue-eyed giant ancestors. But in the thirteenth century they dominated Eurasia.

These Europeans came to Russia. Anthropologically, genetically, partly and culturally, these "Scythians" were no different from the Polovtsy, the Volgary Bulgars and the Rus of Kiev and Ryazan. All of them were representatives of one huge cultural and linguistic community, descendants of Great Scythia, and before that Hyberborea (the world of the Aryans). Outwardly, they could differ only in the type of clothing ("Scythian Siberian animal style"), the dialect of the Russian language - like Great Russians from Little Russians-Ukrainians, and the fact that they were pagans worshiping the Father-Heaven and Mother-Earth, sacred fire. Therefore, the Christian chroniclers called them "rotten," that is, pagans.

In fact, the war with the “Mongol Tatars” is an internal conflict. Russia of the XIII century was in crisis, falling apart, which the West began to devour. The West (with its center in Rome) has almost “digested” the western part of the Russo superethnos in Central Europe, and the offensive on the eastern branch of the Russo superethnos began. Fragmented, mired in feuds Russia was doomed to death. The "Scythians" brought military discipline and royal power ("totalitarianism") to Russia and rejected the West, pogroming a number of Western European kingdoms. So, Baty and Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) acted almost united front against the West. That is why the “Scythians” of the Horde quickly found a common language with the princes and boyars of Russia, became related, framed, married to both sides of their daughters. Russia and the Horde became a single organism.

Only the Islamization of the Horde, the process apparently managed and aimed at the destruction of the Horde empire (Tartary) from within, its internal crisis, led to a serious conflict. A new, healthier and passionate center, Moscow, appeared in the empire. The Kulikovo battle was part of the transition process of the control center from Sarai and Moscow. Finally, this process was completed under Ivan the Terrible, when Moscow was subordinated to the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates. That is, the empire was revived (as it was already more than once in the past), like a Phoenix bird, but in a new look and with the center in Moscow.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

240 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Starshina wmf 21 September 2015 06: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The history of the Mongols was not only written in Russia. Many scholars of that time wrote about the campaigns of the Mongols. This is the Mongolian Secret Tale and the laws of Genghis Khan. Chinese chroniclers also wrote about the invasion of the Mongols. The Arabian scientist wrote about the invasion of the Mongols. records of the invasion of the Mongols. And 95 percent of the troops came to Russia from the conquered peoples of Asia or from the conquered peoples of Siberia and the same Russia. The head of the army were the Mongols and bodyguards from the Mongols. Only about five thousand. Only in rare cases they were sent to battle. Also, each nation has its own story. For example, the people at that time fought in the troops of Batu Khan in Asia and India. They were not in Russia. So who writes that the Mongols could not conquer half the world, etc. Read the story and other Asian states, as there are other countries that were at that time.
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 06: 49 New
      • 41
      • 0
      +41
      Quote: Starshina wmf
      The history of the Mongols was not only written in Russia. Many scholars of that time wrote about the campaigns of the Mongols. This is also the Mongolian Secret Tale.


      Well, actually the so-called “Secret Legend of the Mongols” first came to the Mongols in 1942 on the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Mongolian People’s Republic. In the Kremlin, the delegations of the MPR received the translated text in Russian, which was made by the linguist Kozin from the Turkic original, which was subsequently "lost." Initially, the original was written in Old Uigur letter ...

      Quote: Starshina wmf
      laws of Genghis Khan


      It is interesting, and where are the preserved texts of Iasi Genghis Khan in the original to evaluate the writing language itself?

      Quote: Starshina wmf
      The army was headed by the Mongols and the bodyguards were from the Mongols, about 5 thousand in all.


      What are the names of the Mongol tribes at Genghis Khan?
      Well, I advise you to raise the works of Rashid Ad Din, where he listed all the tribes of the Genghis Khan ulus and whom he called the Türks! laughing
      1. RiverVV 21 September 2015 08: 55 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        It's funny, but now even the Chinese are trying to make Genghis Khan "their own."
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 09: 02 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Well, as if he (Genghis Khan), General Mukali from the tribe of Jalairov, had united scattered Chinese principalities with a sword and began to rule there on behalf of Genghis Khan ... Therefore, he must be his own ...
          1. Talgat 21 September 2015 19: 47 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            I agree and support all your comments, dear Aposlya and above and below

            I’ll just add on my own about the Kuman language - Polovtsy - they are now a Kipchak clan as part of the Kazakhs

            There was already a discussion on the top thief and the idea that the Cumans spoke Russian

            Our guys (I don’t remember who, maybe Marek) pulled out a scan of the ancient Roman Codex Kumanikus - and all the Kazakhs could clearly read the text, it was just necessary to understand the ancient letters like lambda, etc. - and everything seemed to be written now - "A bird sits on a tall tree. need a bow to shoot, etc. "Actually modern Kazakh language (Tatar, Kyrgyz, etc., including)

            And in Russian, by the way, many Kipchaks spoke before the "yoke" and after now they also speak
            1. Kasym 21 September 2015 22: 20 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Jalaira is now the Kazakh clan of the Elder Zhuz.
              Mukhali (he was temporarily left by Genghis Khan in China after the first campaign there; he led the campaign to India) most likely did not allow China to disintegrate, which at the time of the campaign was in a state of crisis - peasant hunger riots broke out all over China, so the army was fragmented and the emperor thought that the nomads will make a noise on the outskirts of the Middle Kingdom and will leave; The Chinese are more grateful to Kubilai Khan (Genghis Khan’s grandson), it was he who “raised” China and founded the Yuan dynasty, which was considered the “best” dynasty in the second millennium - China flourished then - not without reason they named their currency Yuan. hi
              The key to prosperity of the UNION lies in the friendship of the Slavs and Turks - that is what you have to stand on. hi
      2. smershxnumx 21 September 2015 09: 01 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Indeed, out of nowhere, a whole culture "emerged" ... A. A. A. writes and debunks the myths of Western scholars about this. Bushkov in the book "Genghis Khan. Unknown Asia." Very informative, puts a lot in its place ...
        1. Azitral 21 September 2015 11: 35 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          To refer to the opinion of A.A.Bushkov about history is the same as to refer to the opinion of Ksyusha Sobchak about nuclear physics. Malignant demagogue and professional amateur.
          1. NordUral 21 September 2015 11: 47 New
            • -3
            • 0
            -3
            Maybe. Only his arguments are for the most part indisputable.
            1. andj61 21 September 2015 12: 27 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: Azitral
              To refer to the opinion of A.A.Bushkov about history is the same as to refer to the opinion of Ksyusha Sobchak about nuclear physics. Malignant demagogue and professional amateur.

              Quote: NordUral
              Maybe. Only his arguments are for the most part indisputable.

              Most of all, at Bushkov, I liked one thing:
              in two editions of the book, he claims that there was no Mongol-Tatar yoke, that it was a single Slavic-Turkic state (almost according to Fomenko-Nosovsky), and in subsequent editions he speaks of the Turkic state of Genghis Khan, which was formed in the territory from Altai to the Volga. At the same time, Bushkov himself admits that his earlier beliefs could not stand the test of facts and in-depth study of the material.
              1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 37 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                Quote: andj61
                Most of all, at Bushkov, I liked one thing:
                in two editions of the book, he claims that there was no Mongol-Tatar yoke, that it was a single Slavic-Turkic state (almost according to Fomenko-Nosovsky), and in subsequent editions he speaks of the Turkic state of Genghis Khan, which was formed in the territory from Altai to the Volga.


                And there and there he turned out to be right, no matter how strange ...
                If we take a purely Genghis Khan ulus, then there are continuous Türks ...
                And if you take a later period, namely the Golden Horde, i.e. lands of the ulus of Jochi Khan, which did not enter the ulus of Genghis Khan, then the lands of both Slavs and Türks entered.

                Indeed, in the so-called Zalesskaya Horde (Moscow Principality), both Slavs and Turks lived. Who ruled there? Russian princes who took a label in the Horde ...

                So he was right there and there ...
                1. nerd.su 21 September 2015 17: 08 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Aposlya
                  Indeed, in the so-called Zalesskaya Horde (Moscow Principality), both Slavs and Turks lived.

                  Are you confusing anything? This is now Moscow - Zalesskaya Horde. And then there was the Russian principality of Moscow.
                  1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 14 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Read Zadonshchina, it does not directly indicate the Principality of Moscow, but the Zalesskaya Horde!
                    But I understood the hint of the current state of Moscow ... wink
              2. vladimirw 21 September 2015 12: 52 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                But just the opposite - at first Bushkov wrote about the empire of Genghis Khan, and then denied this empire. Agree there is a difference
                1. RiverVV 21 September 2015 13: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  On the contrary. First he denied, and then repented.
                  You didn’t read Bushkov, right?
              3. gladcu2 21 September 2015 18: 43 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                That Bushkov or not.

                But from his Piranha I liked the phrase "the meat melted in my mouth." With which he repeated 10 times. Hungry apparently wrote.
            2. ArcanAG 21 September 2015 16: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              It does not happen.
              Most likely, the target audience simply does not want to argue (they like what Bushkov says).
              And the rest of the vlom read a science fiction writer rewriting history.
              1. bandabas 21 September 2015 16: 44 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I read a lot of Bushkov. I'll be honest. When it began to be published in the 90s it was read interestingly. And then it started. At some point, he ran out of steam. Became a shark of fiction.
            3. Goga101 21 September 2015 16: 48 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              NordUral - Colleague, the arguments of the "great" ukrov that they dug the Black Sea are also undeniable hi . So c. Bushkov from the same clip, and to challenge obvious nonsense is not to respect yourself. As well as inventing a “heroic” past for the people in the style of “great” ukrov, this is a direct humiliation for our people, which even without Bushkov’s nonsense and company have a great past and heroic history.
              Another thing is that in our history there is still much unknown and work and work on it ... but not to such clowns as Bushkov and others like him.
              And it’s just like a carbon copy: the Ukrainians dug up the Black Sea ... the Scythians built a "Chinese" wall ... What are you trying to make us laugh like they are laughing at Ukrainians now - huh?
          2. smershxnumx 21 September 2015 17: 19 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Lomonosov, Karamzin and Klyuchevsky to help you to close the historical gaps in your knowledge of domestic history. I apologize for voicing such banal truths. Very upset that VERY MUCH PEOPLE know BAD HISTORY !!!!
          3. gladcu2 21 September 2015 18: 47 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Azithral.

            Referring to N. Starikov

            There is such a logic.

            History was substituted for all 14 republics, and was told that Russia was to blame for their troubles.
            And Rossi did not know how to substitute. No matter how he rolls, he speaks bluntly. Therefore, all this nonsense begins with the Mongol yoke. In short, everything is tired.
        2. smershxnumx 21 September 2015 20: 19 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And here it is interesting! From the 4th to the 9th century - like there is nothing ... Nobody lives, nothing happens ... they stole something? This gap is not accidental, someone hid a whole culture from us (descendants) !!! Sarmatians, Scythians and others - lived before and after that ... and we are their descendants ...
          1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 20: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Nothing is hidden. Just the majority do not care about history. And when knowledge is required, then they do not. After that, they begin to say that something was hidden from them.
      3. Silhouette 21 September 2015 09: 21 New
        • -9
        • 0
        -9
        The line between the Mongols and the Chinese Tatars of which Genghis Khan himself was actually very weak and very conditional. In fact, it was one ethnos torn by strife. Well, now Russians and Ukrainians. The Horde is an empire of nomads - a very shaky and unstable state formation, which was very short-lived. This is not Egypt or Rome. And not even the Russian Empire. But there are no analogies to it. Russia suffered a military defeat and fell into vassal dependence on strangers. It was not a marriage of love or of convenience. It was coercion to cohabit.
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 09: 56 New
          • 13
          • 0
          +13
          Quote: Silhouette
          The line between the Mongols and the Chinese Tatars of which Genghis Khan himself was actually very weak and very conditional. In fact, it was one ethnos torn by strife.


          In fact, the line between the Tatars of Genghis Khan and the Mongols is HUGE by definition!
          In the 13th century, the so-called Mongols, i.e. the hulk and the Dzungars sat quietly behind the Khingan near Korea until the 16th century and were no different from their ancestors of the Tungus.
          But the Tatars of Genghis Khan are a completely different ethnic group, these are the Turks.

          Quote: Silhouette
          The Horde is an empire of nomads - a very shaky and unstable state formation, which was very short-lived.


          From the 13th to the 15th century it existed ... How would 200 years not be such a small period of time, do you think?
          And by the way, why exactly the nomadic one? In Horde, many cities were actually. The stakes of the khans were not in the field. If you read the ancient descriptions of the same Karakorum or Khanbalik, then in those days European capitals can not be compared with them ...
          "The state cannot be controlled while riding a horse" - this is the Horde rule, the motto came precisely from the Horde ...
          1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 10: 51 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            After the formation of a single Mongolian state, the nomadic tribes of Mongolia were divided into Mongolian and Turkic. Between 1179 and 1206 under the command of Genghis Khan, the Mongols held more than thirty battles, almost all of them were between associations of Mongolian and Turkic clans. For these more than a quarter of a century, the troops of Genghis Khan fought three battles with the Tatars, five with the Merkits, four with the Naimans, two with the Kereits. Genghis Khan's younger brother Khasar attacked the Kungirat (konyrat). Jamuha, a rival of Genghis Khan in the struggle for the throne, drew Turkic clans to his side as irreconcilable rivals of uniting the steppe under the rule of the Mongols. It was the Turkic tribal associations Tatars, Naimans, Merkits who were considered damned external enemies (zhat) for their own Mongols, as a result of the war with the Mongols led by Genghis Khan, the above tribal associations appeared outside the Mongolian state.

            Quote: Aposlya
            In Horde, many cities were actually

            Not all that is fenced is a city. It can be a village and just a garden. Headquarters is also not a city, but a temporary place of stay, albeit a large one. The city is buildings, streets and infrastructure for permanent residence. And the nomad comrades could not, by definition, sit in one place. The Karakoram was back when Genghis Khan was not born.
            1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 11: 54 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: Silhouette
              After the formation of a single Mongolian state, the nomadic tribes of Mongolia were divided into Mongolian and Turkic. Between 1179 and 1206 under the command of Genghis Khan, the Mongols held more than thirty battles, almost all of them were between associations of Mongolian and Turkic clans. For these more than a quarter of a century, the troops of Genghis Khan fought three battles with the Tatars, five with the Merkits, four with the Naimans, two with the Kereits.


              No need to repeat the nonsense of the Soviet school of Mongol unity!
              Name at least one Mongol tribe? Among those named by you, or at least generally known to you? You can’t! Since the Mongolian peoples have never been divided into tribes and are not divided. That they are modern hulks and Kalmyks, that in ancient times they were divided geographically by aimaks, since there were no tribal clans among them.
              To unite the Mongols and Turks, you need to at least understand each other! And this could not be, since languages ​​have completely different roots. The Türks have Turkic languages, but the Mongols have the roots of the language from the peoples of the North, the so-called Tungus. As far back as the 18th century, the Turks called the Mongols the word Dunhyz, i.e. Tungus in Russian.
              The Türks with the Mongols first encountered only in the 16th century, when the Dzungars captured Mogulistan (the territory of southern and eastern Kazakhstan) and all their 2 centuries of history of contact were cut to pieces!

              Quote: Silhouette
              Not all that is fenced is a city. It can be a village and just a garden. Headquarters is also not a city, but a temporary place of stay, albeit a large one. The city is buildings, streets and infrastructure for permanent residence.


              What are you saying ?! You still forgot to add a phone and the Internet here! laughing
              Ancient Sygnak (headquarters of Khan Tokhtamysh) had houses, water supply, bazaars, caravanserais, madrasah schools, places of worship, the palace of the ruler - is this not a city? Is it really a village?
              What is the infrastructure for permanent residence for you then?

              Quote: Silhouette
              And the nomad comrades could not, by definition, sit in one place.


              Who told you that? Kipchaks, for example, who are they? Nomads? But what about the capital of the Kipchaks, the city of Otrar, which destroyed Genghis Khan? After all, there were streets, and houses, palaces. There was a thundering library throughout the East, which the Arabs placed above the Alexandria library in wealth!
              Remember! Nomadic among the Turkic tribes is just a way of housekeeping - this is just a distant pastoralism! Türks are not gypsies going unknowingly where the wind will bring!

              Quote: Silhouette
              Karakoram was back when Genghis Khan was not born.


              What are you? And who created the Karakoram ?! When was it built?
              In what chronicles is Karakorum mentioned before Genghis Khan?
              1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 12: 32 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -2
                Quote: Aposlya
                To unite the Mongols and Turks, you need to at least understand each other! And this could not be, since languages ​​have completely different roots.


                What are you saying! You probably don’t know how the Russians united with the Polovtsy and the same Kipchaks in mutual feuds and why the Polovtsian brides were valuable in Russia. And they had no problems with mutual understanding. There was a household language. Studying in a week.
                Before the Horde times, the Karakoram of the Kereit tribe, where there was a headquarters of the Kereit khan, was in place of the Karakoram.

                There was a thundering library throughout the East, which the Arabs placed above the Alexandria library in wealth!


                Your fantasies amuse me.
                1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 46 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  What are you saying! You probably don’t know how the Russians united with the Polovtsy and the same Kipchaks in mutual feuds and why the Polovtsian brides were valuable in Russia.


                  Is it nothing that the Russian language consists of a bunch of Turkisms? This is about understanding languages ​​... wink
                  And I’ll notice you not only from the time of the Kipchaks, but also of the Pechenegs! In place of Russia, what was the state at first? Avar and Khazar Khaganates! The city of Kiev is generally the Khazar fortress of Samvatas from the 7th century! Read Konstantin Bagryanorodny.

                  Quote: Silhouette
                  Before the Horde times, the Karakoram of the Kereit tribe, where there was a headquarters of the Kereit khan, was in place of the Karakoram.


                  And who told you that? Even if you take into account the help from the wiki, then here:
                  "According to Rashid ad-Din, in the 2th century, the Kereites were" the genus of the Mongols; their abode is [along the rivers] Onon and Karulan, the land of the Mongols. "[XNUMX] Dark Bor on the river Tole. "

                  Karakorum from Turkic into Russian is translated as "Black Boulders", but the Dark Bor will be Kara Orman ... Can't you find that there are absolutely two different names?
              2. ism_ek 21 September 2015 13: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Aposlya
                To unite the Mongols and Turks, you need to at least understand each other!
                Under Genghis Khan, the Uyghur language became the official language in the empire. The main ethnic group in the Mongol empire was the Türks, although only a descendant of Genghis Khan could be a khan.
                Kripchaks are inhabitants of the Volga steppes. Polovtsy, Burgars, Pechenegs, Khazirs, etc. All of them belong to the Turkic group of peoples.
                1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 15 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Under Genghis Khan, the Uyghur language became the official language in the empire. The main ethnic group in the Mongol empire was the Türks, although only a descendant of Genghis Khan could be a khan.

                  Uyghur language is the name of Turkic ... Just do not confuse the then Uyghur and the current Uyghur - these are two big differences ...

                  Quote: ism_ek
                  Kripchaks are inhabitants of the Volga steppes. Polovtsy, Burgars, Pechenegs, Khazirs, etc. All of them belong to the Turkic group of peoples.


                  Not really ... They came to the Volga from Central Asia ...
                  1. Kasym 21 September 2015 22: 00 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Because they wrote in Uigur. From them (Uyghurs) went writing with the Genghisides. hi
                    1. Aposlya 23 September 2015 06: 38 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      The so-called "Uyghur writing" or "Uyghur Türks" appeared even under the Türkic Kaganate. After the conquest of Sogdiana, the Kok Türks took the Sogdian letter and transferred the Turkic phoneme to it, and there was a transition from the runic letter to "Uyghur". "Uyghur Türks" most developed already during the Uyghur Kaganate, which was formed after (and from) the split of the Turkic. We see the same transition already during the Islamization of the Türks - the Arabic script was altered into the Türkic phoneme and received the "Chagatay Türks", i.e. Chagatai writing, which lasted among the Turks of Eurasia (in the USSR) until 1931.

                      PySy .: Uyghurs of our time are not descendants of Uyghurs of antiquity. Modern Uyghurs are sarts who adopted the ethyterm "Uyghur" only in 1920 at the Tashkent Congress of Sart peoples. Prior to that, they bore small-town names like Taranchi, Tobigchi, Kashgarya, etc., and they are still called ... Then, by the way, the sarts of Uzbekistan took the name Uizbek ...
            2. avt
              avt 21 September 2015 12: 41 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: Silhouette
              Not all that is fenced is a city. It can be a village and just a garden.

              laughing laughing Buddy Well, do not suck out something you don’t know and don’t want to know, but you’re breathing in so confidently! Just read the intelligence of the OWDFIDER -Robrois of our William, which was specifically at the Horde rate. There about this “garden” in which “wild barbarians” from the elite at the table are EATING KNIVES AND FORKS, this is when the “enlightened European” sovereigns ate with HANDS, they just didn’t draw a stew with a palm - there were still spoons.
              1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 12: 57 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Rubruk:
                They do not have a permanent residence (civitatem) anywhere and do not know where they will find him in the future. They divided among themselves Scythia (Cithiam), which stretches from the Danube to sunrise; and every leader (capitaneus) knows, depending on whether he has more or less people under his authority, the borders of his pastures, and also where he should pasture his flocks in the winter, summer, spring and autumn. It is in winter that they descend south to warmer countries, in the summer rise north, to colder ones. In places convenient for pasture, but devoid of water, they graze herds in winter when there is snow, because snow serves them instead of water. The house in which they sleep, they set on wheels from wicker rods; Its logs are rods converging upward in the form of a small wheel, from which a neck rises up, like a chimney; they cover it with white felt, more often they also impregnate the felt with lime, white earth and bone powder so that it sparkles brighter; and sometimes they also take black felt.
                In addition, they make quadrangular boxes of chopped small rods the size of a large chest, and after that, from one {92} edge to the other, they arrange a canopy of similar rods and make a small entrance on the front edge; after that they cover this box, or house, with black felt saturated with lard or sheep’s milk so that it cannot be penetrated by rain, and they will decorate such a box with multicolored or downy materials. They put all their utensils and treasures in such trunks, and then tightly tie them to the high carts that pull the camels so that they can also transport these boxes across the rivers. Such chests are never removed from the carts. When they rent their houses to stop, they always turn the gate to the south and sequentially place carts with chests on either side near the house, half the flight of stone, so that the house stands between two rows of carts, as if between two walls.

                These are the cities they built. They removed the wagon from the wagon - the city. Two cabs nearby - already a street.
                1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 10 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  They do not have a permanent residence (civitatem) anywhere and do not know where they will find him in the future. They divided among themselves Scythia (Cithiam), which stretches from the Danube to sunrise; and every boss (capitaneus) knowsdepending on whether he has under his authority more or less people, the borders of his pastures, and also where he must graze his herds in the winter, summer, spring and autumn.


                  Those. here Rubruck just the same says for sure that nomadic clans know perfectly well the boundaries of their summers and winterings! As anyone who runs cattle breeding knows this!

                  Quote: Silhouette
                  The house in which they sleep, they set on wheels from wicker rods; Its logs are rods converging upward in the form of a small wheel, from which a neck rises up, like a chimney; they cover it with white felt, more often they also impregnate the felt with lime, white earth and bone powder so that it sparkles brighter; and sometimes they also take black felt.


                  Rubruk describes in this text a typical Kazakh yurt, which was used during the nomadic wandering ...
                  So what?
                  1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 13: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You do not see the forest behind the trees. We are talking about the mythical Horde cities of nomads, in fact, we were talking that impressed you so much.
                    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 30 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Silhouette
                      You do not see the forest behind the trees. We are talking about the mythical Horde cities of nomads, in fact, we were talking that impressed you so much.


                      Well, then you gave a description of the yurt, and not the Horde cities ... What can I say?
                      1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 13: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It's not me. This is Rubruk. The chapter is called "On the Tatars and their dwellings." He has not a word about the city. Karakorum - a place surrounded by an earthen rampart, behind which the khan's family lived, there were warehouses of property and lived master prisoners from the Germans and French, who built churches for themselves, mosques for Muslims and made weapons for everyone. Rubruk called the palace a long hut for receptions and drunks.
                    2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 41 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Here is what Rashid Ad Din wrote about the Karakorum:
                      "A story about the 210 tall buildings that the kaan erected from the time of the princes' campaign in the Kipchak steppe until their return; a memo about his summer and winter camps, about halts and bivouacs"

                      Here, follow the link to find this chapter and see for yourself: http://vashaktiv.ru/texts/r/rashid_sb_let_t2_ch2.php

                      Those. The Karakorum was built during the reign of Ugudei Khan, and not during the Kereit Khan, as you wrote earlier! And this is a city with palaces, and not a nasty village ....
                      1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 13: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Dear Aposlya! For your information, Rashid Ad Din has never been to Karakoram. Stop telling tales!
                      2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 57 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        What are you ?! And you probably witnessed this ?! laughing
                        Rashid Ad Din is considered one of the main witnesses of those times, so to speak - after all, the khan’s vizier was ...
                      3. Silhouette 21 September 2015 17: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Aposlya
                        Rashid Ad Din is considered one of the main witnesses of those times, so to speak - after all, the khan’s vizier was ...


                        Who is considered? Ignoramuses and ignoramuses? He did not go out from Persia, did not write anything, but only copied the testimonies of others, sometimes very fabulous.
                      4. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 21 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Again you finger in the sky!
                        Rashid ad-Din Fazlullah ibn Abul al-Khair Ali Hamadani (Rashid ad-Doule; Rashid al-Tabib - “doctor Rashid”) [1] (c. 1247, Hamadan - July 18, 1318, Tabriz) - Persian [2] [3] statesman, doctor and encyclopedic scientist; Minister of State of the Hulaguids (1298–1317). He entered the civil service during the reign of Abak Khan (1265-1282). Under Ghazan (1295-1304) he advanced to leading roles, in fact taking the post of vizier, and carried out the most important economic reforms. Under Khan, Oljeyt (1304–1316) was actually the first person in government. At the beginning of the reign of Abu Saeed (1316–1335), he lost power due to the intrigues of political opponents, and then was executed on false charges.
                2. RiverVV 21 September 2015 13: 53 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  I read your srach and realized that the Cossacks were also nomads (herds of horses were bred) and they did not have any cities (without the Internet - what city?) Genghis Khan is Pugachov, and the whole history of Russia was invented by the German-Catherine. Well, or someone else invented it.

                  In general, cities rely only on civilized nations. And among the Turks and Slavs there are ancient settlements. This is so European!
                3. Aposlya 21 September 2015 14: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  heh! Catch a plus! laughing
        2. avt
          avt 21 September 2015 14: 23 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Silhouette
          These are the cities they built. They removed the wagon from the wagon - the city. Two cabs nearby - already a street.

          Yeah - ,, About their food - they make sausages, jerky, koumiss, eat with a knife and fork. Important gentlemen have millet and flour. The poor - sheep (meat). Slaves fill their stomach even with dirty water. "Well, you described the life of the then" middle class "and so what? It is natural that it is beneficial to keep the mass of horse troops in the steppe, it is quite natural. Did everyone live in cities in Russia? Although there were an order of magnitude more cities and this is quite natural in accordance with the way of life. But Motya Prague, on the basis of the same Robruk, well, where about slaves with dirty water, generally made a GENERAL conclusion - the Mongols drink water from puddles and added from myself - eat foxes. But for quoting, plus smileSo the whole report needs to be comprehended - then the picture is more holistic. Especially if you compare it with similar ones, albeit with a small run in time.
      4. nerd.su 21 September 2015 18: 58 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: avt
        Just read our OWLER’s OWLER intelligence report by Roberto Wilhelm

        Robrois was the son of an estate society and simply paid more attention to the top of the military, read the noble estate. And the noble class at all times separated itself from the people. I knew one Nenets from a difficult family, so he also worked with a spoon and fork more skillfully at me than participation in international congresses of reindeer herders and delegations of the peoples of the north obliged Vagit Alikperov to do so. And his fellow tribesmen can eat the eye of a newly killed deer with his hands. Again, Africans who studied in Europe are also cleverly wielding a knife and a fork. Even in field geological camps. And they eat from pottery, and drink from glass goblets. In our similar camps, from dishes, usually metal bowls, enameled mugs and spoons, more recently, aluminum. So who is more enlightened, Africans or Russians?

        Again, the Europeans, even their enlightened rulers, ate with their hands. The food was such that it was convenient enough to eat with hands: meat, poultry, and pies. Many people still eat poultry and pies with their hands.

        So, according to individual evidence, conclusions about the culture of the people cannot be drawn. And then the Africans will be more cultured than the Russians.
  • andj61 21 September 2015 10: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Aposlya
    Well, I advise you to raise the works of Rashid Ad Din, where he listed all the tribes of the Genghis Khan ulus and whom he called the Türks!

    It's like that! Rashid ad-Din, by the way, is one of the few sources that describes in detail the state of the "Mongols", and its neighbors, and their relationship. However, there is no reliable information that the "Mongols" came from the territory of present-day Mongolia and Transbaikalia. Everything indicates that they lived from Altai to the Volga and were, of course, Türks.
  • Mangel olys 21 September 2015 15: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “Even at the end of the 18th century, Jan Potocki was a diplomat, and at the same time an outstanding Polish historian, linguist and ethnographer, who traveled to the vast territories of the Russian Empire from Moscow to Astrakhan, wrote that Tatars live in large numbers from Moscow to Central Asia, inclusive. And, most importantly, in spite of the variety in appearance, - noted Jan Potocki, - the Tatars of Europe and Asia "speak the same adverb" - that is, in one language - "and they all consider themselves to be real Tatars of Genghis Khan." Pototsky also reported that in those days the Tatars and their countrymen did not forget the basic commandments-principles of their Great Ancestor and fellow tribesman: “but tolerance made on me, which, perhaps, is extremely difficult to find elsewhere on Earth the ball. " Accordingly, together with the recognition of their belonging to the native people of Chyngyz Khan, the Tatars also never forgot the primordially Horde principles of ethnic and racial tolerance inherent in ancient times. ”
    Gali Rashitovich Enikeev (Gali Rashit uly Enikei), from a report at the 3th scientific and practical conference dedicated to the International Mother Language Day (http://mtss.ru/pages/conf250209.htm)
  • bya965 21 September 2015 19: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And I
    Apostle, well done
    !
    I have real Mongols friends. They love our vodka. They love Russia too. Those. Ivanes remember kinship. But somehow we owe Alaverdi. Kalmyks are ethnic Mongols (everything is really muddy there, but they belong to the Don Army) with or without a brush, what difference does it make to us.
    They will not betray us in battle, and we will not betray them. On this Russian land stood and will stand!
  • avt
    avt 21 September 2015 09: 28 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: Starshina wmf
    This is the Mongolian "Secret Legend" and the laws of Genghis Khan.

    But do not enlighten us in what language are these tablets written? Mongolian? laughing Or is it in Uigur?
    Quote: Starshina wmf
    .And 95 percent of the troops came to Russia from the conquered peoples of Asia or from the conquered peoples of Siberia and the same Russia. The army was headed by the Mongols and bodyguards were from the Mongols. Only about 5. Only in rare cases were they sent to battle. Each nation has its own story. For example, the people at that time fought in the troops of Batu Khan in Asia and India. In Russia, they were not

    laughing laughing That mother’s own mink to turn the fur inside and then not tired of laughing ??? Can you read your writing, or something isho? Or will you turn over the de-Stalinist ravings about the NKVD detachment detachments with Batu instead of Beria fool about how the Mongols first conquered, then they gave the conquered to arms and made sure that they went into battle in the right direction and did not scatter along the road. laughing
    Quote: Starshina wmf
    .Read the history of other Asian states, as there are other countries that were at that time.
    In-in! Read at least those sources that remained from the Byzantines, Arabs, the same Uigur, and of course intelligence reports Plano Carpini and de Robruk. Just don’t read the European propaganda squeezes from them of different Matvey monks - the Solzhenitsyn people of that time. Then everything will fall into place and the myth about the people unprecedented in the village organized by Genghis from the steppes will disappear, and understanding will appear about a simple change of dynasty in a very specific empire, moreover Christian initially, well, the further participation of the troops of this empire in the Civil massacre organized by the princes in Russia. It is fully described in the “Tale of the destruction of the Russian Land”, written off by Romanov and German historians on the “yoke” and the new state dispensation with the help of of the state "which subsequently spilled into the kingdom, and with the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms - into the Empire. Which, under various names, expanding and contracting, exists to this day.
    1. Vend 21 September 2015 10: 00 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      That the Mongol, the Hun, the Gothic and so on hordes had a backbone of tribes whose name was rooted behind the hordes. And any horde included many nations, different. It is not worth making conclusions about Europodes and Mongoloids. The Kulikovo battle could not be an internal conflict. This division of the sons of the inheritance of Charlemagne can be called an internal conflict. But the liberation movement is not an internal conflict.
      1. avt
        avt 21 September 2015 10: 25 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Wend
        . The Kulikovo battle could not be an internal conflict.

        laughing Yah !? Can you name the composition of the participants? Well excluding the hired Genoese infantry? And where to put Oleg Ryazan, who prudently slowed down and did not appear on the battle? Jagiello, too, for some reason hurried slowly. Say - a foreigner. And you do not want such "foreigners" as part of Dima’s troops? And what about the rather responsible command posts?
        Quote: Wend
        . This division of the sons of the inheritance of Charlemagne can be called an internal conflict.
        applies, but in the Russian version.
        Quote: Wend
        . But the liberation movement is not an internal conflict.

        laughing,, The liberation "of whom from whom? Ahhhh! How am I talking about the yoke, I forgot that! laughing It’s not for supreme power that Dimon fought with the outspoken impostor Mamai, who in fact seized the post in the Horde by force, having eliminated the dynastic ruler from Genghisides, it turns out that the Negro in Africa fought against the colonialists. laughing laughing As before, his predecessors at the Moscow Principality fought in the “liberation war" against the Tver Principality of the colonialists. " laughing Well, in general, the Pope Nevsky ..... also Rurikovich fought with the Horde with the Chernihiv branch of the Rurik ..... wassat
        1. andj61 21 September 2015 10: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: avt
          Jagiello, too, for some reason hurried slowly. Say - a foreigner. But do not want these, "foreigners" in the Dima’s army to look for? Moreover, on fairly responsible command posts?

          Alexander Peresvet, who fought with Chelubey - a monk of the Svensky monastery near Bryansk, and Bryansk at that time was under the rule of Lithuania. The regiment of the left hand was appointed commander of the prince Gleb Bryansk - vassal Jagiello. Andrey Olgerdovich commanded the regiment of the right, being the Prince of Polotsk as part of Lithuania, Dmitry Olgerdovich commanded part of the regiment of the right hand, being the prince of Trubchevsk and Starodub - again being part of Lithuania.
          Back in the 70s, we published a book about the history of the Bryansk Territory, so the chapter that tells about those times was called this: Under the rule of Lithuania, but together with Russia.
          1. Mera joota 21 September 2015 11: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: andj61
            Alexander Peresvet, who fought with Chelubey - a monk of the Svensky monastery near Bryansk

            This is a difficult question. Possession of a spear in a saddle requires many years of training, the fact that a monk who had not previously taken a spear in his hands (especially in a saddle) was able to master it so that they were not afraid to release it against a battle-hardened batyr is more than doubtful.
            The best fighter is always put up for a duel, and obviously they will not choose him from among the monks. Unless he became a monk yesterday, and before that there was a grunt ...
            1. andj61 21 September 2015 12: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Mera Joota
              The best fighter is always put up for a duel, and obviously they will not choose him from among the monks. Unless he became a monk yesterday, and before that there was a grunt ...

              That is exactly what happened. Sergius of Radonezh blessed the battle of two monks of the Svensky monastery, who in the world were boyars - Peresvet and Oslyabyu.
              And in those days, the boyars could not be warriors.
            2. avt
              avt 21 September 2015 12: 25 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Mera Joota
              This is a difficult question. Possession of a spear in a saddle requires many years of training, the fact that a monk who had not previously taken a spear in his hands (especially in a saddle) was able to master it so that they were not afraid to release it against a battle-hardened batyr is more than doubtful.

              no “The question” is actually the SIMPLE. That concept of monastic life and its actual way of life began to be introduced by Vanya No. 3, which was terrible for contemporaries. Before that, the Russians in the monasteries did NOT DIFFERENT from the western and most interesting - eastern religious orders. So that there were quite specific professional fighters who were there ... well, if you would like obedience according to your professional profile - there were times like this, you couldn’t do without a specific sesugiti ONE monastery.
              1. aleshka 21 September 2015 19: 57 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Ivan the Terrible was called Ivan the Terrible !!!
                1. avt
                  avt 22 September 2015 10: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alesha
                  Ivan the Terrible was called Ivan the Terrible !!!

                  ,, Romanovskie historians "-so yes, and the habit has taken root and is called to this day in the common people, and besides, they’re filming different lungins, about the barefoot, dirty tsar, who is, well, purely the forerunner of Stalin, before he even got out of bed in the morning, he thought torture and kill today? wassatAnd if you bother to delve into not only Wikipedia, you will discover the facts that Vanya No. 3 began to do serious business sour and didn’t differ in pigeon temperament, but in those centuries it was quite comme il faut. The most humane of an equal peer was simply to blind. Type as now to resign - to live in a villa in Europe.
          2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 01 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            By the way, according to legend, it seems like the monk Peresvet died on the Kulikovo field, but in Zadonshchina he rides a horse after the battle and discusses something there ...
          3. fennekRUS 21 September 2015 16: 25 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: andj61
            Under the rule of Lithuania, but together with Russia.

            EEE, excuse me, but wasn’t Lithuania at that time Lithuanian Rus? py.s. It’s interesting to monitor the dispute, but can you gentlemen give a discussion in the form of articles with reference material? Winter is near (s), and the question is so interesting that I would love to engage in self-education, there’s no one to turn my head in the right direction. (I think many will support) And it turns out that before Ivan III there were some common phrases, as if the truth came out of the swamps. And the period was very interesting.
            1. andj61 22 September 2015 10: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: fennekRUS
              EEE, excuse me, but was Lithuania at that time not Lithuanian Rus?

              It is now called so, but then it was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and bordered on the principalities of Tver and Moscow.
        2. Vend 21 September 2015 10: 56 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Quote: avt
          Quote: Wend
          . The Kulikovo battle could not be an internal conflict.

          laughing Yah !? Can you name the composition of the participants? Well excluding the hired Genoese infantry? And where to put Oleg Ryazan, who prudently slowed down and did not appear on the battle? Jagiello, too, for some reason hurried slowly. Say - a foreigner. And you do not want such "foreigners" as part of Dima’s troops? And what about the rather responsible command posts?
          Quote: Wend
          . This division of the sons of the inheritance of Charlemagne can be called an internal conflict.
          applies, but in the Russian version.
          Quote: Wend
          . But the liberation movement is not an internal conflict.

          laughing,, The liberation "of whom from whom? Ahhhh! How am I talking about the yoke, I forgot that! laughing It’s not for supreme power that Dimon fought with the outspoken impostor Mamai, who in fact seized the post in the Horde by force, having eliminated the dynastic ruler from Genghisides, it turns out that the Negro in Africa fought against the colonialists. laughing laughing As before, his predecessors at the Moscow Principality fought in the “liberation war" against the Tver Principality of the colonialists. " laughing Well, in general, the Pope Nevsky ..... also Rurikovich fought with the Horde with the Chernihiv branch of the Rurik ..... wassat

          Exactly. You can read the composition of the squads in "The Legend of the Mamayev Massacre", the fallen princes are also listed there. Oleg Ryazansky, he agreed to the battle, because, in which case Ryazan would be burned first. And so he agreed, but did not come. Yes, and did not move to Moscow. And here are foreigners? Disturb God's gift with fried eggs laughing And boorish familiarity in relation to a historical person does not honor, but shows a low culture. Read less about historical fantasy. If the Russian regiments on the Kulikovo field defeated the self-styled khan, thereby rendering the Horde a service, then why did they later burn Moscow? Do not troll the topic
          1. avt
            avt 21 September 2015 11: 08 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Wend
            Do not troll the topic

            Yeah - don’t worry about the questions that ruin the dogma on which it’s so nice to build comments and commentaries. laughing
            Quote: Wend
            Oleg Ryazansky, he agreed to the battle, because, in which case Ryazan would be burned first.

            Nothing that they later burned? wassat
            Quote: Wend
            And boorish familiarity in relation to a historical person does not honor, but shows a low culture.

            Add more - the SIMPLY war heroically fighting in the armor, from some modesty that did not arise, as it was then supposed to be for the Commander-in-Chief, under his own flag. laughing Why would it suddenly ??? I don’t remember the analogues of such a heroic behavior of the leader who led the army to the holy battle and BEFORE the battle mixed in the mass? Notice - without leading a critical attack with a heroic example, captivating the shaken ranks of combat associates with the splendor of the Grand Duke's armor and the scarlet color of the Grand Duke’s cloak, and, once again, BEFORE BATTLE left the command post, and even changed clothes ..... Well, of course, everything it is out of heroic modesty. laughing Or did the official gishtoria lie and there was nothing? Then my dear opponent -
            Quote: Wend
            . Read less about historical fantasy.

            German historians, "yoke", which Mikhailo, in accordance with the name, beat the muzzle in the then academy.
            Quote: Wend
            . You can read the composition of the squads in "The Tale of the Mamaev Massacre",

            Well, this is a short time already posted on the site - inquisitive.
        3. RiverVV 21 September 2015 13: 57 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          It is still unknown, by the way, who the impostor was — Mamai, or Dmitry ... For some reason, quite a lot of people (and, therefore, the feudal lords) went for Mamai. Jagiello and Oleg Ryazansky are only those who did not manage to battle. But for Dmitry - only his Moscow boyars.
          1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 14: 03 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Well, in theory, Dmitry had a label for reigning, i.e. he was the rightful ruler, so to speak ... Well, Mamai is not a khan, he is just a usurper, so to speak ...
            1. RiverVV 21 September 2015 15: 39 New
              • -4
              • 0
              -4
              Do you know the biography of Khan Mamaia so well? :)
              Think about it: what does the word "khan" mean?
              1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: RiverVV
                Do you know the biography of Khan Mamaia so well? :)
                Think about it: what does the word "khan" mean?


                Mom (c. 1335 - 1380, Kafa (modern Theodosius) - beclarbek and temnik of the Golden Horde.

                From 1361 to 1380, during the period of the Great Reminder, on behalf of the puppet khans from the Batuid dynasty, he ruled the western part (sometimes also the capital) of the Golden Horde.


                This is known to anyone who is even just interested in this issue! Khan in the Horde could only be a descendant of Genghis Khan through his eldest son, Jochi Khan. Mamai was only from his (Genghis Khan) tribe Kiyat, but he was never his descendant!
              2. Aposlya 22 September 2015 14: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: RiverVV
                Think about it: what does the word "khan" mean?


                The word khan is the Turkic title of ruler. Comes from the more ancient word kagan.
                Although the word KHAN itself is only development in Turkic dialects ... Well, for example, the same Rashid Ad Din called the khans the word KAAN, i.e. even more ancient Turkic word, descended from the Turkic KAN - blood. Those. the title KHAN symbolizes the blood of the first dynasty of the Ashin Turks.
      2. RiverVV 21 September 2015 13: 54 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Did the sons of Charlemagne multiply by division? I am intrigued...
    2. Bombardier 21 September 2015 10: 22 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      For example, the ancestor of Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire is the great warrior and outstanding commander Tamerlane (1336-1405). Look below at two of his images: on one engraving he is depicted young, on the other - in more mature years:
      1. Bombardier 21 September 2015 10: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        There are many images of Tamerlane. On one of the engravings is written: Tamerlan, empereur des Tartares - Tamerlane - Emperor Tartar, and in the book "Histoire de Timur-Bec, connu sous le nom du grand Tamerlan, empereur des Mogols & Tartares", written by Sharaf al Dean Ali Yazdi in 1454 year and published in Paris in 1722, he is named Emperor of Mughal and Tartarus.
        1. Bombardier 21 September 2015 10: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And here, for example, an engraving of Ivan the Terrible
          Western Europe. The beginning of the XVII century. Engraving cutter.
          Find ten differences with the upper engravings (I'm not talking about kinship) !!! (we do not take age into account)
          1. kalibr 21 September 2015 11: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            But these are European prints! Their authors thus imagined Asians - the cumulative collective image known to educated people of that time and therefore widespread!
            1. Bombardier 21 September 2015 12: 21 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: kalibr
              But these are European prints! Their authors thus imagined Asians - the cumulative collective image known to educated people of that time and therefore widespread!


              Do you think that Europeans have never met Asians? But what about the Silk Road, trade, Alexander of Macedon, the Horde's campaigns in Europe and so on ... It turns out that the Europeans were extremely ignorant!
              1. kalibr 21 September 2015 12: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Just met! And the Embassy of Rubruk and Plano Karpini went to whom? All historians of the Mongolian period still refer to Karpini. But what does this prove? Nothing. "Dressed in fur hats". I wrote you draw!
                1. Bombardier 21 September 2015 13: 11 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Again, for example, these days:

                  Pakistani Kalashi ....
                  A small Dardic people inhabiting two valleys of the right tributaries of the Chitral (Kunar) river in the mountains of southern Hindu Kush in the Chitral region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Pakistan). Dardic peoples who inhabit Chitral are generally unanimous in considering Kalash as the natives of the region ....
                  1. Bombardier 21 September 2015 15: 57 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    In general, history is an entertaining thing, and I won’t go far — the history of HOLLAND was written in 1856. They clarified what happened in 1588:
            2. avt
              avt 21 September 2015 12: 34 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: kalibr
              But these are European engravings!

              Yes .European. Like the cards of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, it is written on them that Ambassador Sigismund Herberstein sent in his intelligence reports. So, of course, you have to look who wrote the portrait based on what sources. Let me remind you of such a fact - there were no photographs then and Western kings, for example, sent artists a portrait of brides to write. Well, given the fact that presented in the engraving
              Quote: Bombardier
              And here, for example, an engraving of Ivan the Terrible
              Since the concrete historical person was wooed by the Queen of Aglitz, the credibility of this image is somewhat more than the picture where, allegedly, Vanya son poked his staff with his staff on the head and even to the reconstruction according to the method of Gerasimov. Somehow it was more visible to contemporaries, even if they were embellished. Moreover, the same Gerasimov from Printsyp to the same Tamerlan narrowed his eyes during reconstruction - the scientist .... wassat he knows better, and we all know it very well - Tamerlan is the Genghiside - Asiatic ponimash. laughing
    3. Silhouette 21 September 2015 11: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Until the 16th century, the word "Mongol" was not in Russian. All were "Tatar". Let them there they now understand among themselves who they really are - Tatars or Mongols, who had an ancient race, and who had more horses.
      1. avt
        avt 21 September 2015 14: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Silhouette
        Until the 16th century, the word "Mongol" was not in Russian. All were "Tatar".

        Quote: Alexey-74
        you're right....

        Well, since people still remembered with whom they lived together.
        Quote: Silhouette
        . Let them there they now understand among themselves who they really are - Tatars or Mongols, who had an ancient race, and who had more horses.

        no Once they did so, and as a result, the GERMANS wrote our story to us and forced us to memorialize almost at the genetic level. Maybe it’s better for ourselves? wassatAnd so soon Alexander the Great from the Pamirs to the Persians will leave by campaign through Greece. laughing
    4. Alexey-74 21 September 2015 11: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      you're right....
  • andrei.yandex 21 September 2015 11: 23 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In fact, the Chinese were corrected by the order of the Jesuits, who, if I am not mistaken, appeared there with certain goals in the 17th century. Yes, and there is not one trace of the stay of modern Mongols in Russia, the DNA genealogy of Professor A. Klyosov also speaks about this.
    Until the 20th century, the Mongols themselves did not know that they had created a great empire. By the way, the same Chinese, according to historians Genghis Khan, are fair-haired and blue-eyed.
  • Alexey-74 21 September 2015 11: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the whole essence of whom they called "Mongols" in the Chinese annals themselves, there was never a mention of typical Mongols as an ethnic group. It is immediately difficult to figure out who directly fought Russia in the 13th century, given that even the Genoese fought on the side of Mamaia. Most likely, the author is right that there was a team "hodgepodge" from the peoples of Asia and partially Europe
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Judging by the list of Genghis Khan tribes from Rashid Ad Din, Russia fought with the ancestors of the current Kazakhs ... laughing
      1. andj61 21 September 2015 12: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Aposlya
        Judging by the list of Genghis Khan tribes from Rashid Ad Din, Russia fought with the ancestors of the current Kazakhs ... laughing

        And not only Russia, but also the ancestors of modern Kazakhs themselves - with each other. After all, the Kipchaks are the Turkic people. Or is it still not?
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          In those days, Kichakis were just a confederation of four tribes: Sary Kapshak, Kulan Kapshak, Kara Kapshak and Katay Kapshay. Sary and Kulan Kapshakov Baty gouged into the root, and some managed to escape to Bel Bel ... But Kara and Katai entered the Batu ulus ...
          Yes, the Kipchaks are also Türks ... Do you think the Türks with the Türks never fought or what?
          The same Batu in the Caucasus, Alan gouged the Turks and didn’t disdain even ... Well, if you recall Tamerlane, he basically fought with the Turks, although he himself was a Turk ... The struggle for power is such ... After all, Kipchaks are Genghisides why they persecuted, but because it was the Kipchaks who ruled before Genghis Khan in the steppe ...
    2. avt
      avt 21 September 2015 12: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alexey-74
      the whole essence of whom they called "Mongols" in the Chinese annals themselves, there was never a mention of typical Mongols as an ethnic group. It is immediately difficult to figure out who directly fought Russia in the 13th century, given that even the Genoese fought on the side of Mamaia.

      At the expense of Mamaia, so it is more or less clear. And here’s the classic “description of the Mongols with paisys and shaved foreheads, and the genotype itself with short legs and a powerful torso, again according to eyewitness accounts, which is why it suspiciously coincides with the ones broken to pieces by ONE successful campaign of Svyatoslav .. ... Khazars. That's how he disappeared imperceptibly, again after ONE successful defeat of his capital by Svyatoslav, the case in history is generally unheard of, and so successfully gave way to a hitherto unseen, but miraculous new people - the Mongols! laughing
  • gorefest7777 22 September 2015 08: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    did the Mongols write ??? very interesting .... but what about the fact that the Mongols learned about Genghis Khan from the Chinese only at the end of the 19th century ... and why there is no hint of a great campaign in the oral traditions of the Mongols ..... why is there no gene of the Mongols with us, if For 300 years they forced us .... it’s very inconvenient to go beyond the boundaries of the usual framework, but the world has changed and, finally, we talked about the works of Lomonosov, Tatishchev, Klassen and other really authoritative scientists
  • Andrey Yuryevich 21 September 2015 06: 51 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    history is not mathematics, science is not exact, each ruler almost rewrote and stated in his own way, a lot of contradictions, different interpretations of events, a sea of ​​fiction, and so on. current events are proof of this.
    1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 08: 37 New
      • -14
      • 0
      -14
      History is a much more exact science than mathematics. You compare history in time, and now compare the same with mathematics and you will see that mathematics is not an exact science. It is very wrong and almost every century is rewritten in a new way.
      1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 10: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Arithmetic is the only exact science!
        1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 12: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No, not accurate. Ask any physicist or mathematician to solve a simple problem: 2 starships fly towards each other at a speed of 0,9C. What will be the speed of convergence? Not a single mathematician or physicist has been able to solve such a problem.
          1. Silhouette 21 September 2015 13: 29 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Well .... the only exact science was ruined .... How to live on?
          2. RiverVV 21 September 2015 14: 06 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            0.994s Also, Newton’s binom to me ... Only this nichrome is not arithmetic.
            1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 14: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And in arithmetic it will be 1,8C.
              1. RiverVV 21 September 2015 17: 10 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So arithmetic has nothing to do with it. In general, the task is formulated incorrectly.
                1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 19: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And what is not correct? The task of the level 1 class of the school. Only there, 2 cars go towards them at a speed of 40 km / h. Here cars are replaced by starships and corresponding speeds.
                2. Ladoga 21 September 2015 21: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well, why - incorrectly?
                  The question is asked, the answer is strictly mathematical.
                  What's the problem ?
                  If you want to be smart, then please ...
                  So what is the incorrectness?
          3. Ladoga 21 September 2015 21: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Have you asked one of the physicists this ,, task ,,?
            1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 23: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Ladoga
              Have you asked one of the physicists this ,, task ,,?

              Asked. It was once a long time ago on the site of mathematicians and the type of schizo. The answer was something like this, only in a clever way: if you approach from the point of view of mathematics, then the problem has no solution, because the law of addition of speeds is fundamental in mathematics. And in this case, the decision will contradict the laws of physics, according to which the speed (any) cannot exceed the speed of light. Therefore, either mathematics or physics are pseudosciences. Therefore, neither one nor the other will give the correct answer. And the invented way for mathematicians to circumvent this contradiction led to the fact that the fundamental law of addition of velocities is not valid, because in this particular example, it does not work and is replaced by another newly invented law. Therefore, when approaching the determination of the total speed of convergence of objects, one will have to make a choice between the newly invented law and the law of addition of speeds. Because in solving this problem, one of the two laws is not true. Accordingly, it is necessary to revise both mathematics and physics (provided that the law of addition of speeds is true). Nobody will do this and nobody will do it. Therefore, let it remain as it is for now.
  • Traveller 21 September 2015 06: 54 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Lev Gumilyov very much appreciated the significance of the Battle of Kulikovo, from his point of view, this is the moment when a single Russian ethnic group was formed, rather than individual Muscovites, Ryazans, Tverts and others, “From Russia to Russia” is a clever book, there he also explains that the yoke was exaggerated .
  • Aposlya 21 September 2015 07: 04 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    With the Battle of Kulikovo, not everything is so simple. Not only are disputes still ongoing about the very location of this Field, it’s also not clear WHAT is called under this event and let comrades forgive me, but there are these questions!

    It is known that we know about the Battle of Kulikovo from literary monuments from the 15th century ("Zadonshchina" for example), i.e. 2 centuries after the event itself, that there can be no evidence ... But there is another BUT:

    We have: the Battle of Kulikovo took place in 1380, the place is unknown - the place that was indicated officially only became such under the Romanovs, with the light hand of a local landowner ... After the battle, beklyakbek Mamay fled to Crimea, where he is killed by the Genoese ...

    Now we look at the Arabic texts ... The battle on Kalka takes place in 1380, where Khan Tokhtamysh again smashes the beklyakbek Mamay, after which Mamai escapes to the Crimea and the Genoese again kill him ...

    Well, Mamai cannot gather an army twice in one year and lose the battle twice, after which TWO times die at the hands of the Genoese ...
    1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 07: 58 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      There is an old book - The Legend of the Battle of Kulikovo. Everything is well painted there. Where were, whom and how many were there. And in the Arabic texts the retelling of our battle is only. The ancient Arabic annals are still a collected work.
      1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 08: 10 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Denis_469
        There is an old book - The Legend of the Battle of Kulikovo. Everything is well painted there. Where were, whom and how many were there. And in the Arabic texts the retelling of our battle is only. The ancient Arabic annals are still a collected work.


        I began to look for the book you indicated ... Ahem ... but this is a book authored by Likhachev D! http://detectivebooks.ru/book/24650139/
        This is the same Zadonshchina in its reissue! What antiquity can we talk about then?
        Well, the Arab annals are famous for, because they were not altered for the sake of elite politics ...
        1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 08: 28 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          No, I'm talking about another book written shortly after the battle.

          And I read the Arabic annals yesterday. Collection of fairy tales. What's in history, what's in geography. Only the people living in the basin with which no one can establish contact are worth a lot. Arabic annals have been rewritten more than once or twice. There is such a thing in historiography as Caspian campaigns such as Russia. Only now no one knows how to understand the Arabian tales about them. For example, about the campaign of 913-914. According to which the type of Russ came 50 thousand. In those days, an army of 50 thousand was huge. And this should have remained in the annals in Russia. But there is no such thing. And still does not know where those 50 thousand type of Russians came from. Therefore, we can say that for the Arabs, all who were north of them were strongly Rus.

          The source is called "The Legend of the Mamaev Massacre." Lies in Lenin and is now on the Internet.
          1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 08: 52 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Denis_469
            No, I'm talking about another book written shortly after the battle.

            Quote: Denis_469
            The source is called "The Legend of the Mamaev Massacre." Lies in Lenin and is now on the Internet.


            "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev is a literary work of the XNUMXth century on the historical events of the Battle of Kulikovo."

            Well, as it were, the 15th century is completely "soon after the battle" ...

            Quote: Denis_469
            Arabic annals have been rewritten more than once or twice.


            Which Arabic chronicles were copied and by whom, when? Who else besides you so claims?

            Quote: Denis_469
            Caspian hikes such as Russia. Only now no one knows how to understand the Arabian tales about them. For example, about the campaign of 913-914.


            Why fairy tales? You just perceive, like many of those Russians as Slavs? It is so?
            Although the Arabs themselves wrote about them as Turks!

            “Rus,” said Abdul-Feda, “is a people of Turkish nationality, which borders on the Guz, people of the same origin from the east ...”

            Guzy are Oguzes, i.e. Pechenegs ...
            By the way, according to the description of the same Arabs, these same Ruses are just one of the Turkic tribes in the Crimea, who lived almost with robberies and humane activity. Mercenaries who earned their bread by hunting for the surrounding Slavs, whom they later sold to the Khazar Khaganate ... See later the Crimean Tatars inherited this business ...
            1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 12: 50 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: Aposlya
              Which Arabic chronicles were copied and by whom, when? Who else besides you so claims?

              Just yesterday I read a translation of the historical work of 1 Muslim leader. I won’t lie to anyone, because the name is hard to remember for me. And there 4 pages were devoted to how one of his predecessors interpreted both history and geography. From there I read about invasions like the Rus on Muslim countries. And about how the Khazars did not fulfill their promise to the Rus and destroyed them on the way back in a three-day battle. And about the actions on the Khazar Sea and the Pimt Sea (like that was said in that annals). The last sea was not particularly memorized, since basically the descriptions were based on actions on the Khazar Sea.
              1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Denis_469
                1 Muslim


                At least some century is this Muslim figure? Your post is more like "one grandmother said" ...
                What kind of battle of Rus and Khazars is said? About Svyatoslav or what?
                1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 13: 13 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  Quote: Aposlya
                  At least some century is this Muslim figure?

                  And hell knows. The translation was not entirely clear. I don’t know Arabic, only comp translation. And what kind of battle I’m talking about is the very one that ended the campaign in the Khazar Sea in 914. Then in 913, the Russians went to the Khazar Sea to beat the infidels (this is how it is written in the book). And there were 500 of them, 100 ships each. And Khazaria agreed to let them go back and forth for half the booty. I missed it. And they robbed Muslim cities on the coast of the Khazar Sea. Then the Muslims gathered boats and merchant ships and decided to defeat the Rus at sea. There was a big battle in which the Russians defeated and many thousands of Muslims died. In 914, the Rus began to return, and at this moment the Khazaria sent their troops to them. According to the annals, the Muslim mercenary army demanded revenge from the king of Khazaria for the murdered co-religionists and went to slaughter the Rus. They fought for 3 days, after which, as it is written in the annals, Allah gave victory over the infidels. 5 thousand were able to leave, but then they died in the next battle, destroyed by the Bulgars. I mainly read about that war in that annals.
                  1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    No, it is here that the author of the refutation and the century in which he wrote it is necessary ... In short, it’s clear that the matter is dark ... And then, why should we believe the last author? Was he an eyewitness? I doubt it ...
                    1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 13: 28 New
                      • -3
                      • 0
                      -3
                      If I knew Arabic, I could tell you. In addition, personally in that text I didn’t have much time to sort out which of them misinterpreted — I was interested in the details of what Muslims call wars with the Rus and now the world mistakenly calls the Caspian campaigns of Rus. I know very well that Russia did not go there at that time, but the Arab annals say that they fought with the Russians. And they describe the war in detail. Since in the text I was only interested in the description of military operations, I can assume that, as always, the whole description is correct. And that the Muslims were really defeated by those who called themselves Russians, or who were called that. And the subsequent Khazaria attack on the Rus was also there. If you do not take details, such as the loss / trophies of the parties, then in general the events are described by everyone equally. As for the falsifications, I simply noted for myself what it was then. There, the matter is very dark with what was going on there then.
                      1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Stop! But the Arabs then called the Russians not Slavs at all! winked

                        “Rus,” said Abdul-Feda, “is a people of Turkish nationality, which borders the Guzes, a people of the same origin from the east.”

                        Those Russians whom the Arabs described were precisely the Turks and lived in Crimea, were engaged in humanity and robbery, and were mercenaries.
                        You simply automatically tried on the Arab Rus to the Slavs, this is your mistake ... But the trouble is - well, the Slav tribes did not have any Rus at all! Lift the lists of Slavic tribes and see for yourself ...
                      2. Denis_469 21 September 2015 14: 55 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Aposlya
                        You just automatically tried the Arab Rus on the Slavs, this is your mistake ...

                        Yes, I already found out my mistake.
                2. Ladoga 21 September 2015 21: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  In approximately the same language in this manner, I told my daughter in my childhood bedtime stories. Funny however ...
                  1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 23: 05 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Do you want me to tell you here the entire chronology of the fighting in that war? I do not need it. I wrote the most general details that no one can know except those who have read the historical works of Muslims. I just showed the details to some of what I know the story from the source. Who knows the story - they will see and find out what I'm writing about. And at the same time where this was written.
        2. Buffalo 21 September 2015 08: 56 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          There is such a sensible book. I bought it on Kulikovo Field, on the day of the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the battle, in September 1980. A gift edition with a jubilee bookplate.
      2. Denis_469 21 September 2015 08: 35 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        Here is a link to a 15th century book: http://www.litmir.co/br/?b=99973
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 08: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          15th century! Not after the battle!
          1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 12: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And the year 1380 is the 14th century. So in time everything is in order.
            1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 01 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Only 70 years have passed, and we find out that the Americans won the Second World War ... this is me for example ...
              1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 13: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And if you read the winners, we find out that the USSR won. That book was written by us who defeated Mamaia. And just to “I want to tell you, brothers, about the battle of the recent war, how the battle of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and all Orthodox Christians with the filthy Mamai and the godless Hagarins happened on the Don. And God exalted the Christian race, and humiliated the filthy and their savagery shamed them, as in the old days he helped Gideon over the Midian and glorious Moses over the Pharaoh. and agarians. " This is a quote from 1 page of a book.
                1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Here, just the same, it is not at all clear who the winner was there, either Dmitry, or Tokhtamysh ...
                  1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 14: 55 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Both. Both were winners. You just got confused in history, and in one of the Khazar sources it is said that after Mamayev’s battle, Mamay fled to the south, where he quickly gathered a new army. Since tributaries of the horde were many nations. Only he was unlucky: during the Mamaev battle, the khan was killed. As a result, in the eyes of a part of the Mongol-Tatars, Mamai lost legitimacy. And in the same year, Mamai went south with new troops, because after the defeat from Russia, he could no longer fight with us. The chronology of events is this: on September 8, 1380, Mamai met with the Russian army in battle and lost it. Then he retreated south and mobilized a new army. The battle of Kalka took place in October or November 1380. That is, 1 or 2 months after Mamayev’s battle. As a result, I repeat again: Dmitry and Tokhtamysh were the winners of Mamaia. Moreover, the main victory belongs to Dmitry, because in the Mamaev massacre, a Mongolian (like) khan died, who gave legitimacy to Mamaia. And in the battle with Takhtamysh, most of the army of Mamaia went over to the side of Takhtamysh. Just because of the more legitimacy of Takhtamysh who had a khan with him in comparison with Mamai, who had no khan with him. Now it is clear?
                    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 15: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      What? !!! In 1 month, gather two troops and lose the battle, while each time retreating to the Crimea?
                      Get involved! But in those days there were no railways and there were no ready-made regiments in the barracks either!
                      It’s impossible to lose the battle in September somewhere in the Moscow wilds, flush to the Crimea, gather the army again and get to Kalka with them already in October, and there again be beaten and flush to the Crimea again ... He traveled there by plane here or what?
                    2. Denis_469 21 September 2015 19: 51 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      You are displaying an amazing storytelling. What do you know about the mobilization of that time? Nothing. And you take to judge what you do not know. Then the times were different. A herald came and reported mobilization. All took off. Right away. While Mamai got to the gathering place, the army was waiting for him there. For a month on horseback they traveled from Moscow to Berlin. And Napoleon managed to get to Paris in a month. Then each vassal had an army ready to come forth immediately. Each soldier had weapons and ammunition in his home storage. At that time, all the shelves were ready. It only took a few days to collect.
                    3. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      And I thought that the army of Mamaia consisted of representatives of the tribes, each living in their own tribe, on their lands! But it turns out like - the regiments of soldiers under his arms were already standing and the heralds were waiting!
                      And you still blame me for not knowing ?! laughing
                    4. Denis_469 22 September 2015 11: 54 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      And so then it was. You are used to democracy, and then there was conditionally imperial rule everywhere. And if a herald arrived, then he was going on his way. Right away. And I wrote about the tributaries of the Horde. Which does not contradict your words. Mamai moved south and gathered a new army there.
                    5. Aposlya 22 September 2015 12: 48 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      What kind of democracy is it? Where did you see her in our open spaces ?!

                      You have once again shown that you have no idea how you lived in those days. In those days, Nogai lived in Crimea - the Nogai yurt stood there. And they didn’t live in the city in one place where the herald could come and declare Mamai’s will. And they lived throughout the steppe. Now imagine how much that herald will travel from one parking lot to another with this mobilization order. And then - the Nogais are not tributaries of the Horde to you, they are this very Horde! And if you have just fought a battle, then what kind of warrior will you go to the army again ?! Yes, he’s your messenger in the nearest ravine and cuts, the more Mamai is not a khan, but the same beklyakbek with the only difference that he is from the Kiyat tribe.

                      So you're just trying to "pull an owl on a globe," just to justify the thesis of two battles in one month ...
  • avt
    avt 21 September 2015 10: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Aposlya
    We have: the Battle of Kulikovo took place in 1380, the place is unknown - the place that is indicated officially became such only already under the Romanovs, with the light hand of the local landowner ...

    good Which, as evidence of a grandiose battle, found either one or two tips of an armor-piercing arrow, and on the basis of this fact, Nicole No. 1 ordered that this field be considered Kulikov and a standard monument of SECOND DISTRICT was erected. laughing And then at the place where after the battle Dmitry stood for three days, burying the dead not a decree for the supporters of this place of battle there - well, there are NO traces of burials there. Again, which is typical - the graves of Oslyaby and Peresvet why in Moscow. Why weren’t they brought to Trinity? Well, at a stone's throw. Not - we can say they collected the remains of the heroes in the capital, but somehow the liquid burial always looked in Moscow - it didn’t even draw to the temple of the middle hand, more like a chapel. Although NEAR the mighty monastery with walls, a different Kremlin in the vastness of Russia will envy.
    1. Ladoga 21 September 2015 22: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ,, ... who, in evidence of a grand battle, found either one or two tips of an armor-piercing arrow ... ,,
      There were then no armor-piercing arrows!
      And there were no tanks either ... fool
  • 97110 21 September 2015 11: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Aposlya
    from the 15th century ("Zadonshchina" for example), i.e. 2 centuries after the event itself

    Little refinement. The 15th century is the years from 1401 to 1499. The events of 1380 are 15 years from the 21th century. Which is slightly different from 2 centuries. Do not find?
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yah?!!
      "The exact date of the creation of Zadonshchina is unknown: it could be written between the date of the battle itself and the end of the XNUMXth century, to which the earliest surviving list belongs (Kirillo-Belozersky). The manuscript mentions the Bryansk boyar, later a priest in Ryazan, Sofoniy - probable author a story.
      “Zadonshchina” in the list of the 1852th century was first published in XNUMX by V. M. Undolsky and was immediately perceived as a literary imitation of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”: its individual expressions, images, whole phrases repeated and remade the corresponding images, passages and expressions “ Words ", applying them to the story of the victory of the Russian troops over the Tatars beyond the Don in the Kulikovo field. All six currently known lists of Zadonshchina give an extremely distorted text, and the exact restoration of the original form of the work is now hardly possible. The textual correlation of the preserved lists of the Zadonshchyna is not entirely clear: they argue about whether the “short edition” (reflected in the Kirillo-Belozersky list) is the original version or, on the contrary, subsequently shortened. At the end of the XNUMXth century, the French Slavist Louis Leger put forward a hypothesis, according to which the "Word of Igor’s Regiment" was created by a XNUMXth century hoaxer modeled after Zadonshchina (and not vice versa). Since the connection between Zadonshchyna and the Word is beyond doubt, the Leger’s version was accepted by all subsequent supporters of the fake version of the Word (A. Mason and his group, A. A. Zimin, K. Trost and his group, E. . Keenan). However, some literary scholars (primarily O. V. Tvorogov) noted that the passages in Zadonshchina parallel to the Word do not always fit logically into the narrative and contain many inconsistencies that are easily explained in the traditional approach, but unlikely in the version of secondary The words".

      Subsequently, the linguistic studies of R. O. Yakobson, L. A. Bulakhovsky and others showed that the language of Zadonshchina has much more new features than the language of the Word. A. A. Zaliznyak demonstrated that the independent and parallel to the “Word” parts of the “Zadonshchina” are sharply different in syntactic parameters (while the “Word” is uniform in this regard). "

      But also the "Word" in those days was declared a fake written by Musin-Pushkin!
  • Silhouette 21 September 2015 12: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Aposlya
    Well, Mamai cannot gather an army twice in one year and lose the battle twice, after which TWO times die at the hands of the Genoese ...


    Mom never died at the hands of the Genoese, because they did not kill him. Mamaia was killed by their fellow tribesmen and buried in the Crimea on Mamaev’s Hill.
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And according to other sources, Tokhtamysh killed and buried him with honors!
      It just seems to me that the version with the Genoese is more faithful, since it was the Genoeses who were its sponsors ...
  • Fox
    Fox 21 September 2015 07: 04 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    and it’s interesting with dates, until Petka 1, it was 7508 years old, and after entering another calendar it became 1700 ... and then by what dates did they calculate? Islamization of the Horde ... it became no longer interesting to read further.
    1. V.ic 21 September 2015 07: 30 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Fox
      it’s interesting with dates, until Petya 1, it was 7508 years old, and after entering another calendar it became 1700 ..

      Not 7508, but 5508. You managed to “create the world” for 2000 years to age.
      Quote: Fox
      Islamization of the Horde ..

      In L.N. Gumilyov, this process dates back to the reign of Khan Uzbek, the fact that he married the Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich to his sister Konchak (in the baptism of Agafya).
  • parusnik 21 September 2015 07: 23 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    About the Battle of Kulikovo, begun for health, the rest of the article, for peace ...
  • ICT
    ICT 21 September 2015 07: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and the genetics of the local population.


    Well, I also asked for a long time, and did anyone study the genetics of the Mongol, for the presence of Slavic genes
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 08: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what does the Mongols have to do with it? Genghis Khan never had them ... They were first stuck to him already in the 18th century in the history of Karamzin ...
      1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 10: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        yeah, and Genghis Khan himself is not a Mongol, right?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Mera joota 21 September 2015 11: 25 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Genghis Khan himself is not a Mongol, right?

          So it’s a Mongol, but it’s not a Mongol at all, for the Mongol is ONE of the definitions of peoples living south of Lake Baikal. Far from the only one.
          It’s like Russian. So it was Krivichi, Vyatichi, etc. Or Polovtsy, they are Kumans, they are Kipchaks, and if you dig deeper, you can get lost in general.
          PS: for someone, Kiev, and when it was Mankerman ...
        3. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 14 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Rashid Ad Din (and not only he) wrote that Genghis Khan came from the Kiyat tribe. Tribe Kiyat - Turkic tribe! The history of the formation of the Kiyat tribe is mentioned in the Turkic literary monument - “Oguz Name”, stored in London. Russian scientists attribute that specimen to the 5th century BC.
          Genghis Khan is a Turk, and not a Mongol.
          At the moment, the Kiyat tribe is part of the Kazakhs, Nogais and Karakalpaks.
          1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 13: 18 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Well, but I’m stupid, I was born and lived almost my whole life in Buryatia and didn’t know .. And then Rashid Ad Din the Mongolian Borzhiginov’s family entered the Türks. Oh well
            1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 25 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              There are sorrows in life! Do not worry... wink
              You only knew the story that the Mongols proclaimed in the Kremlin in the 42nd year, and not the one that was before the Soviet period of historiography ...
              1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 13: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                do you mean the pseudoscience that you rub here? I worry more about those who listen to you
                1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 59 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  This as you call "pseudoscience" is based on the annals of the time, you persist in the heresies of the Soviet period ... To each his own comrade! wink
                  1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 14: 10 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Yeah, it’s based. Recently I was in Kazakhstan and Khakassia - both there and there guides told how Al came to them. Macedonian, quoting "Iskander Name." Out of respect, I didn’t laugh in their faces .. to each his own
                    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 14: 17 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Yeah, it’s based. Recently I was in Kazakhstan and Khakassia - both there and there guides told how Al came to them. Macedonian, quoting "Iskander Name." Out of respect, I didn’t laugh in their faces .. to each his own


                      And we took everything in chorus and believed you about your adventures in Kazakhstan! laughing
                      1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 14: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        well, to each his own .. in 2012 and 2014 - and there is nothing supernatural in this. request it’s a matter of making Genghis Khan a Turk! it's five good why not immediately a Kazakh? they have already begun to rewrite history, so let's do it right!
                        ps only his own, a mestyachkov, but no Russian
                      2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 15: 06 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        well, of course, the little trolley’s turned on! Good luck hi
          2. Alibekulu 21 September 2015 16: 23 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Mongolian clan Borjiginov recorded in the Türks. Oh well
            Nude repeat as if .. there is a version that the name of the genus Temuchin can be translated from the Turkic languages ​​as "bori jien".
            I mean, "wolf nephew." And the wolves were a totem of the Turks.
            Among the Kipchaks, the ruling clan is "Spruce Bori", i.e. "sovereign wolves"
            And the ethnonym "Mongol" itself very much resembles the self-name of the great power of the ancient Turkuts "Mangi El" ... request
  • V.ic 21 September 2015 07: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and the fact that they were pagans worshiping the Father-Heaven and Mother Earth, the sacred fire. Therefore, the Christian chroniclers called them “filthy,” that is, pagans. Author Samsonov Alexander

    We consider: "Father-Heaven and Mother Earth, the sacred fire" = total 3. In the Christian version, the god also "trips" to God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit. The pope, by the way, is called the "great pontiff." A pontiff, this is nothing more than a "priest", for example: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lubker/1321/%D0%9F%D0%9E%D0%9D%D0%A2 % D0% 98% D0% A4%
    D0% 98% D0% 9A
    "• Pontifex.
    P. made the priestly collegium among the Romans, which was entrusted with the supervision and management of all religious life, public and private worship. The name was derived from pons and facere, because P. built and kept pons sublicius (on piles, sublicae) in order to make sacrifices on both banks of the Tiber and perform sacred actions on the bridge .. "
    By the way, L.N. Gumilyov directly speaks of the prevalence of Nestorian Christianity in the Horde, and the sister of Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) Sartak (the son of Batu Khan) was just a Nestorian.
    It would be more correct to call the population of the Horde not pagans, but polytheists.
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 08: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      By the way, L.N. Gumilyov directly speaks of the prevalence of Nestorian Christianity in the Horde, and the sister of Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky) Sartak (the son of Batu Khan) was just a Nestorian.
      It would be more correct to call the population of the Horde not pagans, but polytheists.


      Alas, Gumilyov is mistaken in this case!
      Türks of that time, i.e. before Islamization, they were Tengrians. The symbol of Tengri is an equilateral cross, there is also a likeness of the "Maltese" cross. Often, these crosses were sewn simply on clothes. For example, when you see a man with a cross on his clothes or on his neck, what do you think of him? Your first thought will be that you are definitely a Christian!
      From here the myth of Christians of the Nestorian sense was born. After all, it is known that, according to legend, the Nestorian sect broke away already in the 5th century A.D. from Christianity and her followers went somewhere to the East. Finding people in the Horde with crosses on their clothes or on their necks, they decided that they were Nestorians, although the Türks before Islam were just Tengrians ...
      By the way, Nestorians could never wear crosses - they broke away from Christianity in the 5th century and were declared heresy, and the cross among Christians appeared as a symbol of faith only after Attila's campaigns on Rome, i.e. at the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th centuries.

      By the way, Sartak was already a Christian. After a sisterhood with Alexander, Batu allowed him to accept the faith of Christians.
      1. V.ic 21 September 2015 10: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Aposlya
        Alas, Gumilyov is mistaken in this case!
        Türks of that time, i.e. before Islamization, they were Tengrians. The symbol of Tengri is an equilateral cross,

        I have the right to give the opinion of L.N. Gumilyov, and you have the right to dispute, but, sorry for being rude, you have a different "caliber" with him. He, at least, was twice a doctor of sciences: in geography and history. The cross, like the swastika is a solar sign, and refers more to the sun, and not to the sky.
        Quote: Aposlya
        after a sisterhood with Alexander, Batu allowed him to accept the faith of Christians.

        Strongly said, however, a change of faith in a rigidly structured society usually leads to the death of an apostate from the faith of ancestors, who betrayed his ancestors. A negative example must be severely punished.
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 22 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: V.ic
          I have the right to give the opinion of L.N. Gumilyov, and you have the right to dispute


          That's it! Everyone has the right to their opinion! But the fact is that, unlike you, I know perfectly who the Türks are, and I also perfectly know who the NAYMANS are, who for some reason were ranked among the Nestorian Christians! Or the same Kerei (Kereit) - they even have tamga is a cross.
          The same Gumilyov generally did not write anything about Tengrism among the Türks, although this is strange, since it was Tengri who was anciently among the Türks! If you do not believe me, then read the runic texts from the stele of the prince of the Turkic Kaganate Kultegin.

          Quote: V.ic
          The cross, like the swastika is a solar sign, and refers more to the sun, and not to the sky.


          And where do you think the sun is? In the sky! As the center of this sky ...

          Quote: V.ic
          Strongly said, however, a change of faith in a rigidly structured society usually leads to the death of an apostate from the faith of ancestors, who betrayed his ancestors. A negative example must be severely punished.


          What happened to Sartak is purely the policy of his father Batu Khan.
          But when the Turks began to convert to Islam, i.e. under Mengu Khan or Uzbek Khan - there was a terrible massacre among Genghisides!
          1. V.ic 21 September 2015 15: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Aposlya
            The same Gumilyov generally did not write anything about Tengrism among the Turks

            Hello again ... Here you are lying. About Tengrianism, Bon, shamanism among the Turks, I read it from him. In the book "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe", considering anti-systems, he just considers various religions of that time. There is more on this subject in the Millennium Around the Caspian.
      2. avt
        avt 21 September 2015 12: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Aposlya
        Alas, Gumilyov is mistaken in this case!

        Heretic! Burn without delay! laughing
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 05 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Well, Gumilyov did not know or simply did not attach importance to the faith of the Turks before Islam ...
          Yes, and Turkology in those days was in the pen. How many Turkologists in the heat of the struggle against pan-Turkism were scattered in the camps ...
          1. V.ic 21 September 2015 15: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Aposlya
            Well, Gumilyov did not know or simply did not attach importance to the faith of the Turks

            To this I replied above: "About Tengrianism, Bon, shamanism among the Turks, I read it from him. In the book" Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe ", considering anti-systems, he just considers various religions of that time. There is still on this subject in" The Millennium Around the Caspian ".".
            1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Then, if he knew about the faith of the Türks before the Islamic period, why did he talk about Nestorians who were not born here and were not born?
              1. V.ic 22 September 2015 07: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Aposlya
                why did he talk about Nestorians who were never born here?

                “Here”, of course, they were not their spawn, but they were in the Horde, and therefore spoke of them (Nestorians). For your information: Lev Nikolaevich has more than one book on the Turks and each one he “touches” the topic.
                1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 08: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And who in the Horde were ranked among them?
                  For a moment, and who are among the Nestorians? Tribes Naiman and Kerey ... Both those and those Turkic tribes in antiquity professing Tengrianism, like all Türks. And on clothes they could very well like all Tengrians wear crosses ... But this does not make them Christians by definition.
                  1. V.ic 22 September 2015 14: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Aposlya
                    And on clothes they could very well like all Tengrians wear crosses ... But this does not make them Christians by definition.

                    I tell you about the Nestorians, and you tell me about the Tengrians. Sorry, we are having a dialogue between the blind and the deaf ... By the way, the same L.N. Gumilyov defended the idea that the followers of Nestorius, like the Pavlikians, did not recognize the Virgin Mary, but simply called the "Virgin Mary", they did not recognize St. Trinity ... i.e. were not Christians, though monotheists. Read "Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe", you will not regret, honest pioneer! On this, I propose to complete the dialogue in view of its utter uselessness for both of us. Sincerely, Victor. what
  • Denis_469 21 September 2015 08: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author of the article would need to read the sources on the battle that he did not. There is, for example, an ancient book of legend about the Battle of Kulikovo. Everything is painted in detail there. The author did not read it. This is evident from his writings on the number of Russian and Mongol-Tatar troops. The book also describes the loss of troops on both sides and the number of survivors. And also the fact that Mamay did not receive help from Ryazan just because the contact was intercepted and Oleg Ryazansky did not know when Mamay would come. As a result, he was late and attacked the rear of the returning Russian army and killed the wounded there.
  • unknown 21 September 2015 08: 34 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    There was no Tatar-Mongol yoke. Even more than a quarter of a century ago, my professors from a specialized university insisted on this.

    Actually, the TARKHTARO-MAGOLSKY is more correct, where the TARKHTARO from TARH and TARA is the children of PERUN, and MAG is from GREAT.

    Modern Tatars are Bulgars, i.e. Volgars, Volgars.

    Modern genetic studies have convincingly proved that Germans, Poles and Russians are one people, without the admixture of Mongoloid blood.

    In those days, to which the battle is attributed, there was only one state - the Roman (Roman) Empire, in modern historiography - Byzantium. And the so-called Crusades, the Turkish conquest, are the essence of civil war.

    No Mongolian sources exist.

    As for the "Arab" sources, the so-called Arabic language is called by the Arabs in Turkish letters, which came to them only after the Turkish conquest.
    By the way, many Russian proverbs make sense only after their translation from the so-called Arabic.
    Arab conquests and the caliphate are a historical phantom. And the “Arabic” language itself is a lunar language, well known to the Slavs, who used it along with the solar language.
    By the way, in modern Turkey, words and expressions that we would consider abusive are actively used.

    The distortion of Russian history began with the Tsar-Antichrist, Peter, with whom, in fact, the so-called Romanovs (Roman proteges) began
    1. Nagaibak 21 September 2015 08: 46 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Oh, like the lunar language and the sunny one!))) But what about the Martian language?)))) One word is bambarbia kirkudu.))) Something the Tartarii more and more flattening.)))
    2. kalibr 21 September 2015 08: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There are many!
    3. Buffalo 21 September 2015 09: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It is felt that you are brought up on the books of Soros.
      The time of the Ivanovs, who do not remember kinship. A generation of drugs and Pepsi.
    4. Mangel olys 21 September 2015 14: 56 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: ignoto
      Modern Tatars are Bulgars, i.e. Volgars, Volgars.

      We are not Bulgars, we are Tatars and we speak Tatar, not Bulgarian.

      "... The history of the Tatar people to date, not only is it not covered sufficiently and objectively in official historiography, on the contrary - the history of the Tatar people was deliberately distorted and" hidden in the dark, "as the prominent Russian academician-orientalist V.P. put it . Vasiliev ... "
      Article by GR Yenikeyev REMEMBER ITS OWN NAME ... (answer to the "Bulgarists").
      Source: http://tartareurasia.ucoz.com/publ/starye_stati_gali_enikeeva/starye_stati_gali_
      enikeeva / vspomnim_imja_svoe / 3-1-0-44
  • Nagaibak 21 September 2015 08: 42 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Author! All the same, you are not Gumilev.))) Myths are debunking.))) Something we will soon come up with the story in Ukrogabonia.
    1. Denis_469 21 September 2015 08: 45 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Now you can rewrite history. Most do not consider history to be a science, because if they themselves can distort it, then others do it. Because now the fake sea. They even the state orders fakes. A recent example with fakes for the execution of Poles in 1941. The Germans. Our anti-advisers made fakes, which were recognized by the court as fakes. Ilyukhin paid for that exposure of life. But the story and the truth saved.
  • kalibr 21 September 2015 08: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I haven't laughed like that for a long time! "Only at 3 one o'clock in the afternoon when the wind blew in the direction of the Horde, and all the Horde army got involved in the battle" - that is what it means to neglect the historiography! This is when the north wind blew in the direction of the Horde? It is said after all in the "Tale ..." - "The south wind pulled ..."
    And here begins the most interesting. Our historians and Kirpichnikov and the same Razin searched for a certain meaning in this. "He carried the dust in the eyes of the Horde!" But ... take a look at the map! We stood in the north !!! And the wind from the south would carry dust to our eyes! But ... in fact, the wind was not at all! This is a phrase from the Bible, where "And then the southern wind blew and Jesus Navinn screamed in a loud voice" and where the Lord makes a contract with Jesus Navino and gives him into the hands of his enemies by this sign! The lexical comparison of texts coincides almost completely. This was pointed out by our famous historian I.N. Danilevsky, whose work on this topic should be known to the author. There is still work: Rudakov V.N. "Dukh Southerly" in "The Tale of the Mamai Massacre" // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. Sat. 9 M .: 1998. I thought that this topic is generally closed. But there are no people who discover the role of the "spirit of the South" again! In fact, it was inserted to emphasize the PREPARED CHARACTER OF OUR CASE and EVERYTHING!

    THREE AT ... CAM did not like the above and they put three minuses. I have ... minus, but the LESSION remains a "legend", and the Bible - the Bible, and when an intelligent person compares them, he will understand everything!
  • Buffalo 21 September 2015 08: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The author is trying to give out wishful thinking. As if he were an eyewitness and contemporary of Mamaia. - Pitiful attempts, for the sake of a momentary trend, rejecting the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Ponadergal with pine forest, with a tendentious purpose, the borosopisets Samsonov. To listen to him, there was nothing at all - raids, murders, tributes, prisoners - there were entirely international friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation. And they fought, in his opinion, solely due to a misunderstanding or with a binge.
    Discussing this masochistic delirium seriously is ridiculous.
    Conclusion: bullshit (BSK).
    1. atos_kin 21 September 2015 11: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Bison
      Discussing this masochistic delirium seriously is ridiculous.

      The level of your upbringing is ridiculous and, looking at how conclusions are drawn, education too.
  • Jurkovs 21 September 2015 08: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    As for the "debunking of myths" I do not believe. But here is what the Russian annals did not say and what is found in many in European documents. Prince Jagiello was late for the battle and waited. After the victory of the Russians, he unexpectedly hit the rear of the convoys and stripped the Russian army of all the trophies. Along the way, he beat the wounded, after which he left for Lithuania. At that time, Ukraine, up to the Wild Field, was part of the Principality of Lithuania and was present in the army of Jagaila. Do not forget about anything.
  • Fox
    Fox 21 September 2015 08: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: V.ic
    Not 7508, but 5508. You managed to “create the world” for 2000 years to age.

    Well, count it, take the calculator ...)))) and what have I gotten old? re-read, it won’t help, re-read more, until you fully understand what was written. good luck.
  • oracul 21 September 2015 08: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the history of any people who have been reporting their existence since ancient times, there are myths that appeared as a reflection of real facts that took place in life. And then the metamorphoses of historical research begin, when the well-known is rejected, refuted, supplemented, rewritten, composed for the sake of some kind of personal, sometimes purely personal, and sometimes someone ordered, interests. You don’t have to go far into history, just remember the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, how much historical dirt, unprecedentedness was dumped on the revolution, the history of the formation of the USSR, its destruction. Apparently there is such a scandalous type of people, it’s not so important for historians or they just work in this field, who are eager to go down in history in any way possible and not necessarily true, rather believable.
  • Glot 21 September 2015 09: 02 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Taking into account the latest research (including in the field of genetics), it is obvious that there are no "Mongol-Tatars" in Russia of the XIII-XV centuries. did not have. This is a myth invented by foreigners who rewrote the history of mankind and Russia in their interests.


    And is it possible to read more about these studies?
    Who exactly (Names, Surnames, scientific titles, etc. ..), what kind of work (Names of works, where and by whom are published, etc.) with the sources used.
    And also, I would like to know in more detail, with evidence / documentary evidence about who and when, and why rewrote the history of mankind and Russia in particular, and who launched the myth of the "Mongol-Tatars".
    1. kalibr 21 September 2015 09: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What you are corrosive, however! Put a person in an awkward position ... Where will he find so many answers ... You will not gather to look for the ends!
      1. Glot 21 September 2015 09: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What you are corrosive, however! Put a person in an awkward position ... Where will he find so many answers ... You will not gather to look for the ends!


        No, I just want facts and not idle reasoning. And the evidence, and not the words in the likeness of "well, this is obvious" or "scientists have proven" and the like. )))
        And in general, all this bacchanalia with substitution, or rather, attempts to substitute true for false, got a little already.
        They are really trying to replace history, and not only ours, but in general. Substitute for fables, frank delirium at times. What is it called, one of these areas, "folk history" seems? Why is this done? Here, of course, commercial projects along with frank betrayal and the working out of OTHER money by distorting YOUR history. It seems like you didn’t have that one either, and you’ve been invented, but in reality you “plowed open spaces of the Bolshoi Theater on spaceships”. )))
        Case in point.
        Days went into the bookstores, lies another "study" of anyone, in which "evidence" claims that Alexander the Great was defeated by Rus. Oh how !!! He didn’t go to India, and it was not from there that he turned back to Russia, and we defeated him. ))) A circus with horses, or Siberian elephants. ))))
        For a long time I did not laugh so much as after a cursory examination of this book. )))
        But there will be, they will read and believe, and they will prove with foam at the mouth that it was so.
        1. dmb
          dmb 21 September 2015 10: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In this regard, the last paragraph of this historical opus speaks for itself: "Only the Islamization of the Horde, a process apparently controlled and aimed at the destruction of the Horde empire (Tartaria) from the inside." And how Samsonov resisted and did not mention the State Department, apparently he remembered in time that he had formed a little later.
        2. kalibr 21 September 2015 11: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Russ they are everywhere, this is a trend! They built the pyramids in Egypt. And the Hittites - Russ. What was their capital - HATTUSA - Hut Rus! What more do you want?
          1. IS-80 21 September 2015 14: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            Russ they are everywhere, this is a trend! They built the pyramids in Egypt. And the Hittites - Russ. What was their capital - HATTUSA - Hut Rus! What more do you want?

            Pyramids were built by Ukrainians so there is no need to confuse us here. But the Hittites are Russ. This has already been quite reliably proven using haplogroup analysis.
            1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              That is, they first lived in Asia Minor and then went into the forests of Eastern Europe? With grief or something after the battle of Kadeshe?
              1. IS-80 21 September 2015 19: 25 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                Quote: kalibr
                That is, they first lived in Asia Minor and then went into the forests of Eastern Europe? With grief or something after the battle of Kadeshe?

                That's why you exaggerate? The kingdom fell into decay, so they went to their relatives to the north. There in those days it was calmer. The Hittites are part of the superethnos of the Rus as Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Arians, partially Celts, Cimmerians.
                1. kalibr 21 September 2015 21: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Oh my God! Fomenko is resting !!!
  • Buffalo 21 September 2015 09: 18 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The long-suffering memory of the heroes of the Battle of Kulikovo is being attacked today. And not only she alone. In criminal law, today, the norm is in force: not to mention the nationality of the criminals. Here, and the Golden Horde, led by Mamai, today is a crowd of subjects without nationality ...
  • vnord 21 September 2015 09: 23 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Read Fomenko, even though he is a mathematician, he presents interesting views on the history of Europe and Russia. Not everything is so simple, but it makes you think. He does not pretend to be true and proves that there was no yoke like this. And the Battle of Kulikovo is an internal squabble between the Eites for the right to rule in Russia. (Today they would say the struggle for power between the elites for control over the post-Soviet space)
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 09: 28 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Read Fomenko, even though he is a mathematician, he presents interesting views on the history of Europe and Russia. Not everything is so simple, but it makes you think. He does not claim to be true and proves


      I would like the evidence.
      Bring them.
      DOCUMENTARY evidence, fundamental if you want what Fomenko DISCUSSES.
      And note, the whole project of Fomenko & Co. is not a scientific but a commercial project.
      Yes, before setting a quiet minus again, provide evidence of your and Fomenko's innocence. Links to documents and the like.
      1. andj61 21 September 2015 11: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Glot
        I would like the evidence.
        Bring them.

        But there is no documentary evidence that could unambiguously tell us exactly what events occurred at that time. And they cannot, for lack of evidence, testify in favor of a particular version.
        One thing is clear - the Battle of Kulikovo is a milestone in the formation of Russian statehood.
        1. Glot 21 September 2015 11: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But there is no documentary evidence that could unambiguously tell us exactly what events occurred at that time.


          Why are they missing?
          I have mentioned some below. I can repeat:
          There is the Trinity Chronicle, Rogozh Chronicler. But this is all the beginning. 15th century. There are earlier Ipatiev and Simeonov annals. There is the Moscow Chronicle Arch and Zadonshchina.
          So in fact, the period both before and after Paul Kulikov is reflected in the annals and arches.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. kalibr 21 September 2015 11: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Read I.Danilevsky ANCIENT RUSSIA through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries). Aspect Press, M .: 2001. He examines in detail Fomenkov's research ...
    3. Nagaibak 21 September 2015 12: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      vnord "Read Fomenko, even though he is a mathematician, he presents interesting views on the history of Europe and Russia."
      Do not read the bullshit at night.)))
  • erased 21 September 2015 09: 43 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The invincible phalanx of Alexander the Great was based on the strong production base created by his father Philip


    Funny as it may seem, Alexander the Great is also a collective image. But this is so, by the way. In general, according to the history of past centuries, a lot remains closed, because there is absolutely no data, or they are fragmentary. This was clearly and thoroughly written in the works of the authors of Zhabinsky, Kalyuzhny, Valyansky, Kesler. However, there are many authors, you will not list all.
    What was there at the end of the 14th century, who is who and how and why is difficult to figure out. One thing is certain - no Mongols came here. Historical documents of the earlier 17-18 centuries of Asian countries (China, Japan and their neighbors) are late alterations and compositions taken from European history.
    Well, the founder of all this historical mythology can rightfully be considered Joseph Scaliger and Dionysius Petavius. Here it is ...
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 10: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Funny as it may seem, Alexander the Great is also a collective image.


      Yes, this is really not funny. It is stupid to laugh at ignorance.
      But if you want, tell me what is the basis of the statement that A.M. did not have ? )))

      What was there at the end of the 14th century, who is who and how and why is difficult to figure out. One thing is certain - no Mongols came here. Historical documents of the earlier 17-18 centuries of Asian countries (China, Japan and their neighbors) are late alterations and compositions taken from European history.


      Note. There is the Trinity Chronicle, Rogozh Chronicler. But this is all the beginning. 15th century. There are earlier Ipatiev and Simeonov annals. There is the Moscow Chronicle Arch and Zadonshchina.
      Learn materiel and do not read nonsense !!
      1. tlauicol 21 September 2015 10: 21 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        a year later they will write how the Greeks and Macedonians sat quietly until 2015, etc. and did not meddle anywhere. And Genghis Khan was Russian, like his grandson yes There’s no bones
        1. Glot 21 September 2015 10: 27 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          a year later they will write how the Greeks and Macedonians sat quietly until 2015, etc. and did not meddle anywhere. And Genghis Khan was Russian, like his grandson, yes.


          I think they can come up with something better. )))
          They say that there were no Greeks or Macedonians at all, and all these were reptilians, and Stalin fought with them, personally, being the son of Genghis Khan. )))
        2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          As for the bones, the grave and mausoleum of Juchi Khan (the firstborn of Genghis Khan) is located near the city of Karaganda ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Glot 21 September 2015 10: 24 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      This was clearly and thoroughly written in the works of the authors of Zhabinsky, Kalyuzhny, Valyansky, .....


      Sorry, I completely forgot. Authors.
      Among these surnames, there is not a single scientist-historian. No one !
      All they write is their thoughts, alternative and absolutely unproven documented.
      And I'm sorry, I used to believe specialists and not lovers.
      So ... learn history from the right authors and from the right books.
      1. kalibr 21 September 2015 11: 00 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        You know, we now have this: I saw a man with a bright cover book. Opened ... the letters are large, written it seems understandable ... Bought ... just stated! Got it! I was delighted! He taught history badly, he was used to sending everyone to ... And then everyone is sent! He is to the soul - everything: the adept is formed. It is impossible to convince him - it is necessary to read serious books, and there it is “incomprehensible.” But at the computer, this humanoid sits and knocks. My students are techies when I give them to read even an art book on a topic, the first thing they ask is, "is she fat!" And very often my articles are praised not for the content, but for what ... "they were simply and clearly written." And if stupidity is simply and clearly written?
        1. Glot 21 September 2015 11: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You know, we now have this: a man saw a book in a bright cover. Opened ... large letters written it seems clear ... I bought ... just stated! Got it! Rejoiced! He taught history poorly, he’s used to sending everyone to ... And then just everyone is sending! Everything is to his soul: the adept is formed. It is impossible to convince him - you need to read serious books, and there it is "incomprehensible." But at the computer, this humanoid sits and knocks


          Alas, that is unfortunately.
          The language in these books is simple and understandable, plus an associative series is given, also simple, plus phrases as I mentioned above in the likeness of “scientists have proven” or “latest research” in conjunction with an abstruse word and voila. But the fact that those same "scientists have proven" facts or references to the documents do not exist, this is no longer adherents adherents.
          As for poor school, it’s different here. I, too, was not the best teaching, I graduated from the 8th grade and the Soviet vocational school in triples. But when he first picked up one of Fomenko’s works, he thickened such a folio, having read from cover to cover, and didn’t raise the topic of his work. Since it was extremely clear that all this was a fiction, unproven stupidities and they simply fool people about earning money on it. That's all.
          1. kalibr 21 September 2015 13: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The natural mind has nothing to do with education has not been canceled. So this is your case! But no one has canceled the foam instead of the brain, and if the foam and Fomenko met, then it will be cool! And since, according to Pareto's law, 80% of people are "not very", then its cause is a win-win and economic.
            I recently read an article about the artifacts of the Roman time in the Crimea and on Taman. Oh, I barely even understood what it was about, although ... at one time I wrote a book in English about the Romans in the area. But SCIENTIFIC, above the head. This, incidentally, is also "foam", but different in texture ...

            I look at the minus ... This is for "Pareto's Law", I know. But the law will not change it! And foam too!
            1. Glot 21 September 2015 14: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              ..... and if you met polystyrene and Fomenko, it will turn out cool!


              I had a case. They argued with one friend, he turned out to be an ardent fomenenko. The argument that all the ancient buildings are supposedly fictitious is 500 years old or even less.
              He brought me an excerpt from some book by Fomenko and Co., I don’t remember verbatim, but it was written something like that they say why such bricks in the masonry of Roman buildings are fresh, it can’t be. Next came a photo of one brick fragmentary in the wall of a Roman building, and one in the wall of a medieval castle, if I am not mistaken somewhere on the coast of England or Scotland, I do not remember exactly. But not the essence, the essence is that the first Roman brick was excellent, strong, the second - medieval, all almost crumbling. And if this one, and could not stand it for 400 years, then how could it be so preserved for 2000 ?! That was the main evidence, and what my comrade so leaned on.
              I told him, but you didn’t think about the difference in climate on the wet, blowing coast, where there are eternal rains and slush and dry, hot Italian?
              Have you ever thought about the difference in the compositions of which these bricks are made?
              I didn’t think that the castle stood in an open area (I already mentioned its humidity and other things), and the Roman wall (structure) has only recently been unearthed, and most of the time it was underground, in a good climate?
              Have you seen the ENTIRE wall of this castle and the ENTIRE Roman building entirely? Perhaps, and most likely even in the castle, most of the bricks were well preserved, and in the Roman structure you can find a lot of rotten ones?
              They palm off on you what they want you to see, and no more, and you draw conclusions without possessing the entirety of the information.
              Comrade didn’t understand me ... I just didn’t understand what I was trying to convey to him ...
              And so they have with all the proof.
              1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And he did not hear anything about thermoluminescence. The essence of this method is that if the ancient soil, ceramics and so on. heat up to 400-500 degrees, then they will glow and the more intense the non-ancient subject. Modern soil and bricks do not glow when heated. There are tables that allow to check the intensity of the glow ... And the archeomagnetic method reveals the residual magnetism of a brick, which remains from the time of its firing. Accuracy is high! But ... for some reason it is not an argument for Fomencoids. And often the same subject is subjected to different dating and check how much they match.
                1. Glot 21 September 2015 20: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And he did not hear anything about thermoluminescence.


                  I have not heard of such a method either. But, thank God, there is little doubt about what real scientists write. )))
        2. IS-80 21 September 2015 13: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          And if stupidity is simply and clearly written?

          Something I did not understand is self-criticism or self-promotion? laughing
          1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            My students like to put such faces into my writings ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mera joota 21 September 2015 11: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Glot
        All they write is their thoughts, alternative and absolutely unproven documented.

        Duc in history is not without this ... Writing was undeveloped, often a person who knew how to write was not related to events, learning facts through third (or more) persons, in addition, imposing someone else's perception on his is not impartial ... All this allows you to do now absolutely opposite conclusions as your imagination riches. The historian’s hard work is that it is worth remembering a lot of sources and the “trends” that existed at that time in order to at least get a little closer to the truth.
        1. voyaka uh 21 September 2015 16: 37 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          The problem is that archeology, as a science, has appeared very recently.
          She is still “in diapers” in relation to other sciences. Such methods
          dating as radiocarbon in comparison (as reference) with rings
          trees, layers of ice in ancient glaciers - only a few
          tens of years. More recently, learned to read under the microscope "blind
          papyrus "- by scratches (with washed ink), which until recently
          thrown into the trash. More recently, we learned how to use ultrasound for
          search for underground ruins.
          Now Fomenkovites have less and less room for maneuver: ancient history does not
          just do not "approach" as they would like, but, on the contrary, everything becomes
          more ancient (and interesting!), as the dating of artifacts is refined.
  • ivanzu87 21 September 2015 10: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I advise you to read the art book, Vladimir Vozovikov Pole Kulikovo.
    From an artistic point of view, the book is wonderful, the description of the battle (1/4 of the book) is impressive.
    I want to believe in such a story, I advise schoolchildren in the first place.
  • Belousov 21 September 2015 10: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the article should still be called differently, more correctly, more truthfully: "The Battle of Kulikovo in the light of the myth of the" Tatar-Mongol yoke ". They are already rewriting history for the sake of political-nationalist clans. Soon, it will probably reach the point that Yermolov went to Shamil with a request to take the Russian Empire into citizenship.
  • voyaka uh 21 September 2015 10: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "These Caucasians came to Russia" ///

    These ones?
    Siege by the Mongols of Baghdad. The besieging Mongols are at the bottom.
    1. Nagaibak 21 September 2015 12: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      voyaka uh "The besieging Mongols are at the bottom."
      C'mon, what Mongols.))) It was a Jewish-Tatar invasion and the Jews are depicted there.))))) True cheeky, but nothing, nothing.)))
      But seriously, now the taratarii will tell you the image of the 18th century and fake.))) As usual.))))
    2. Aposlya 21 September 2015 12: 29 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Siege by the Mongols of Baghdad. The besieging Mongols are at the bottom.


      The faces are the same on the top and bottom.
      The era of the Renaissance in art at that time had not yet come and every artist painted a man like himself ...
      1. kalibr 21 September 2015 13: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the column of Trajan, the sculptor put on scales and Sarmatians and their horses from head to toe, and here faces are similar - the same is a crime to me. But he did not know that there are differences.
        1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 13: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So what?
          The Romans of their Kataphracians, i.e. they also took heavy cavalry from the Sarmatians, or rather, put the Sarmatians of the horsemen into their ranks, so they got a cataphract ...
          Scythians even in ancient Greece served as mercenaries from Athens, so there is nothing surprising ...
          1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 13 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Read carefully: from head to toe, in the scales! Like in tights!
        2. Nagaibak 21 September 2015 13: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          kalibr "On the column of Trajan, the sculptor put on scales and Sarmatians and their horses from head to toe"
          And what was the Sarmatian cavalry not in armor? Equestrian armor for the steppe is not a problem.)))
          1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 14 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Here was my article about Trajan’s column as a historical source. With pictures ... Take an interest!
    3. IS-80 21 September 2015 13: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "These Caucasians came to Russia" ///

      These ones?
      Siege by the Mongols of Baghdad. The besieging Mongols are at the bottom.


      Nothing like this. Academician Fomenko convincingly proved in his works that this painting depicts the siege of Memphis by Jews and Russians in the era of the Old Kingdom.
  • Silhouette 21 September 2015 11: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This process finally ended under Ivan the Terrible, when the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates were subjugated to Moscow. That is, the empire was revived (as it was more than once in the past), like a Phoenix bird, but in a new shape and with a center in Moscow


    The Moscow empire? .... This is something new in historical science. However, for those who do not understand the difference between a kingdom and an empire. It seems to me that, in fact, the process of the revival of the empire ended with the annexation of Crimea. Still, this is not a one-time, but a time-consuming process from Peter to Catherine. Peter was the first to refuse to pay certain compensation to Gireyam. This is the end of one time and the beginning of another.
  • alebor 21 September 2015 11: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Strange article. Blinded from two different halves. The first half is the official history of the Battle of Kulikovo, and the second is the hypotheses of A. Samsonov. It seems to me that it would be more correct to publish each of these halves as a separate article with a separate heading.
    Again, it is not clear where the author got information about the myth about a large number of Mongols in Russia? Not a single serious work on history has ever affirmed this. It only talks about the vassal dependence of Russia and the payment of tribute by it. But no numerous "migrants" of the Mongol-Tatars crowded the streets of medieval Moscow were ever discussed. Apart from the few Baskaks, the bulk of the Mongol-Tatars lived in their Horde. No one ever seriously said that the Mongol-Tatars were entirely Mongols. On the contrary, it was always said that the core of the original army was also known to the Mongols, and most of the "Mongol-Tatars" were Mongols. Just as in the earlier invasion of the Huns, many different nations took part, who had nothing to do with the Huns, including Slavic detachments. Even the army of Napoleon in Russia was called the "army of twelve languages" completely by accident.
    And all the "genetic" research of the author in general seems naive to me. Why not dig deeper and remember the Stone Age hunter-gatherers who lived in the vast ice age of Europe? After all, it is really strange why the representatives of the Indo-European peoples in the south are predominantly dark, and not the north predominantly bright? What, when they resettled, the blondes went north and the brunettes south? It is easy to guess that such racial separation arose as a result of natural selection, as adaptation to environmental conditions, long before the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Europe, and therefore almost all Europeans, genetically first of all, the descendants of those very ancient inhabitants of Europe, assimilated by less numerous but more cultured Indo-Europeans. But belonging to a nation is determined primarily by belonging to a certain culture, linguistic and historical tradition, genetics is "the tenth thing". The historical memory of the Russian people raises its origin to the ancient Slavs, and not to the Scythians, Tatars or Finns. Just like, for example, the Germans consider themselves descendants, successors of the traditions, history, language and culture of the ancient Germans, and not the Celts, Balts, Slavs, or Stone Age hunters. It is by this memory, by these inherited cultural traditions, that a person belongs to a specific people.
    1. igordok 21 September 2015 11: 44 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Thanks for the comment. hi
    2. saruman 21 September 2015 14: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I agree.
      Simply, most of us want modern rulers to measure any antiquity.
      Since the days of Herodotus, historians, as scientists, have been trying to come up with their own “rulers”, and the older this “ruler” is, the more difficult it is to refute it. The story written by Klyuchevsky, Karamzin and Solovyov is historical “granite” and it is very difficult to “gnaw” it. Historians, after them, did not sit idle and discovered a lot. “Rulers”, however, were Soviet and not everything suited them.

      According to the “Kulikovo battle” historians - professionals and historians - amateurs collected a certain number of new facts, a certain number of contradictions and non-connections. Official historical science on this issue (and not only) is in the same position. Hence, a great many new "theories" and hypotheses, or even just fantasies.

      Seriously, we need a new fundamental work on the history of Russia. Writing it, taking into account new reliable facts recognized by most historians, is a very difficult task. That is the question. Can our historians cope with such a task at the beginning of the 21st century? To put an end to profanity and amateurism, while leaving room for new discoveries and the development of historical science.
      1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 14: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And from what time will we calculate? From which state exactly - there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...
        1. Glot 21 September 2015 14: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And from what time will we calculate? From which state exactly - there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...


          And can these "dozens" be listed, namely, of the States, and precisely in the territory of modern Russia?
          1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 15: 01 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Well, if according to the first estimate, then: Turkic Khanate, East and West Turkic Khanate, Avar Khanate, Khazar Khanate, Bulgarian Khanate, Golden Horde, Kazan Khanate, Kasymov Khanate Astrakhan Khanate, Crimean Khanate, Principality of Russia, Moscow, Moscow, , Ryazan, etc. etc.
            1. Glot 21 September 2015 15: 53 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              Well, if the first estimate .....


              On the first estimate - a deuce.
              Do you understand the meaning of the definition - the State?
              I see that no ...
              "Learn, study and study again" (c) V.I. Lenin. But, of course, I'm not sure that he said that. Though ... ))
              1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 06: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And what do you think is the state? The vertical of power and Mukhtar on the border or what?
                Ancient Athens or Sparta were ordinary states, although they consisted of one city ...
                1. Glot 22 September 2015 09: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And what do you think is the state? The vertical of power and Mukhtar on the border or what?
                  Ancient Athens or Sparta were ordinary states, although they consisted of one city ...


                  Hmm ... but in your opinion it turns out that the same Serpukhov, Verey, Mikulinsk and so on. principalities can be safely considered states?
                  Do not make me laugh. )) And do not pile up examples from the Ancient World, such as the Greek polis (cities / states) and the Middle Ages. These are different things.
                  Yes, and we have one chronology, from R.Kh. or from N.E. R.Kh and N.E. I think it is not necessary to decrypt?
                  Although of course you can keep the chronology even from the beginning of the reign in Suzdal or Tver, this is your personal right, which in no way affects the generally accepted and observed chronology. )))
                  In exactly the same way as it is generally accepted, I remember and recognized that in 1380 we - Rus, defeated the Tatars and laid the foundation for getting rid of the yoke on Kulikovo Field.
                  Although you also may not consider this a victory of Russia, or consider that this was not at all. What are the enemies so eager to convince us of?
                  So it goes. )))
                  1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 09: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Glot
                    Hmm ... but in your opinion it turns out that the same Serpukhov, Verey, Mikulinsk and so on. principalities can be safely considered states?


                    How did the principality of Kiev, for example, differ from ancient Athens in fact? Only prefixes BC and AD?

                    Quote: Glot
                    Although of course you can keep the chronology even from the beginning of the reign in Suzdal or Tver, this is your personal right, which in no way affects the generally accepted and observed chronology. )))


                    Again the chronology ... And what does it have to do with it, since it takes a quarter of your post? What are you attached to him then?

                    Quote: Glot
                    In exactly the same way as it is generally accepted, I remember and recognized that in 1380 we - Rus, defeated the Tatars and laid the foundation for getting rid of the yoke on Kulikovo Field.


                    Well, this is how to say ... After all, in fact, Dmitry was not defending himself from the Tatars, but from the usurper Mamaia. After all, he was sitting at the hand of Tokhtamysh and it was Tokhtamysh who raised to the throne of his son Vasily ...
                    Well, the fact that later in the time of the Romanovskys was written, it’s probably worthwhile to separate the grains from the chaff, like it or not ...
                    1. Glot 22 September 2015 10: 02 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      How did the principality of Kiev, for example, differ from ancient Athens in fact?


                      Stop, stop, what does Kiev have to do with it? you wrote:

                      From which state exactly - there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...


                      So Kiev has nothing to do with it.
                      Then identify Athens with the reign in Gorodets, or Sparta with the inheritance of Mozhaisk. )))
                      There is a difference ? )))

                      Again the chronology ... And what does it have to do with it


                      What do you mean? Again, back to what you wrote:

                      And from what time will we calculate? From which state exactly - there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...


                      Actually, I showed you where we are calculating from.

                      Well, the fact that later in the time of the Romanovskys was written, it’s probably worthwhile to separate the grains from the chaff, like it or not ...


                      Well, the “separators” ... Now you have separated Kulikovo Field in a simple brawl, after 50 years of the war of 1812, separate from us, and after a hundred and until May 1945 you will get there.
                      And the question is:
                      For whom you work, separators "grain from the chaff" ?? !!
                      1. Aposlya 22 September 2015 10: 32 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        Quote: Glot
                        Stop, stop, what does Kiev have to do with it? you wrote:


                        You asked me to name these dozens of states - the Principality of Kiev is on my list ... Do you even read the diagonal messages?

                        Quote: Glot
                        So Kiev has nothing to do with it.
                        Then identify Athens with the reign in Gorodets, or Sparta with the inheritance of Mozhaisk. )))
                        There is a difference ? )))


                        As for Mozhaisky, this is already your speculation - I did not mention it. Or are you trying to heap all the weights together and reduce everything to an absurdity?

                        Quote: Glot
                        Actually, I showed you where we are calculating from.


                        By the way, you never indicated him, but asked rhetorically about him ...
                        Quote: Glot
                        Well, the “separators” ... Now you have separated Kulikovo Field in a simple brawl, after 50 years of the war of 1812, separate from us, and after a hundred and until May 1945 you will get there.


                        And then what was this battle if not a fight? How many of these brats have sunk into oblivion? But Paul Kulikov was just lucky - they took and raised to the shield, despite the fact that it was in Soviet historiography that she was given the meaning of "liberation from the yoke" ... But if you look at the fact, this does not work out at all ...

                        Quote: Glot
                        For whom you work, separators "grain from the chaff" ?? !!


                        Yes, of course, the Americans! We sell the motherland together! Is it your turn to borrow? laughing
                      2. Glot 22 September 2015 11: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You asked me to name these dozens of states - the Principality of Kiev is on my list ... Do you even read the diagonal messages?


                        A familiar trick, to deny what was said and not to notice the obvious. )))
                        Dozens of state TVs within sovr. RF
                        Kiev is not yet within the Russian Federation. Or, have you taken it there already? )))

                        As for Mozhaisky, this is already your speculation - I did not mention it. Or are you trying to heap all the weights together and reduce everything to an absurdity?


                        Well, what about speculation? And this, not you wrote:

                        Principality of Russia - Moscow, Tver, Novgorod, Kiev, Ryazan


                        Although, again, Kiev was brought there but not the point. Tver, Novgorod (there was still a slightly different formation there), Ryazan.
                        Then you can easily supplement the list with Serpukhov, Mozhaisk, Vereya, Gorodets and so on.
                        Although here you rightly called them - the principality.
                        So not so, you can also safely call these Departments - the states? )))

                        And then what was this battle if not a fight? How many of these brats have sunk into oblivion? But Paul Kulikov was just lucky - they took and raised to the shield, despite the fact that it was in Soviet historiography that she was given the meaning of "liberation from the yoke" ... But if you look at the fact, this does not work out at all ...


                        Here I come to the fact that you are trying to blur our past by dying out glorious pages in it.
                        So, a cabal and no more ...
                        What else do we have about the interlovers?

                        Yes, of course, the Americans! We sell the motherland together! Is it your turn to borrow?


                        No, thanks. I don’t extort the past distorting. I know my story. So, sell one. Or with alternative colleagues. )))
                      3. Aposlya 22 September 2015 12: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Glot
                        Kiev is not yet within the Russian Federation. Or, have you taken it there already? )))


                        And that Kiev is no longer Russia? I always considered him a Russian city. Although if you recall its Khazar roots, then yes - not Russia ...

                        Quote: Glot
                        Then you can easily supplement the list with Serpukhov, Mozhaisk, Vereya, Gorodets and so on.


                        Can Serpukhov be compared in importance to the Principality of Moscow or Tver? I say - do not shove every village here ...

                        Quote: Glot
                        Here I come to the fact that you are trying to blur our past by dying out glorious pages in it.
                        So, a cabal and no more ...


                        This is a matter of propaganda, how to present it, and it is your business to believe it or not.
                        Well, if in fact, then Dmitry went near Tokhtamysh, he received a label for reigning, he paid a tribute. Again, Toshtamysh raised his son to the princely Moscow of Moscow ...
                        When Tokhtamysh was angry at Dmitry, he came and burned Moscow, and Dmitry and his boyars, the neighbors from Moscow, made friends at that moment ...

                        Is this the so-called “yoke fight”?
                      4. Glot 22 September 2015 13: 07 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        And that Kiev is no longer Russia? I always considered him a Russian city. Although if you recall its Khazar roots, then yes - not Russia ...


                        Kiev, no, not Russia.
                        Although you were not even talking about Russia or Russia, but he was "the territory of the Russian Federation", and even then there are three times no. )))
                        You wrote:

                        there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...


                        So, do not give up evidence. )))

                        Can Serpukhov be compared in importance to the Principality of Moscow or Tver? I say - do not shove every village here ...


                        No, of course the Serpukhov prince cannot be compared with Tver or Moscow, but, this, and Tver and Moscow in the Middle Ages were not States as such. The Principality is a little different.

                        Well, if in fact ...


                        You can fight in different ways. Yes, they were under the yoke, yes they got shortcuts, but they got out of it. And the Battle of Kulikovo is one of the episodes of that struggle.
                        But of course for me, as a Russian person. So for you, cabal. )))
                      5. Aposlya 22 September 2015 14: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Glot
                        So, do not give up evidence. )))


                        OK! If you are not satisfied with the Russian principalities as a state, then what is considered a state?
                        Kaganates (Turkic, Avar, Khazar, Bulgarian) in your opinion were states?
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Glot 21 September 2015 14: 36 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    And from what time will we calculate? From which state exactly - there were dozens of them on the territory of modern Russia ...


    And can these "dozens" be listed, namely, of the States, and precisely in the territory of modern Russia?
  • kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The basis for it is the 20-languid ARCHEOLOGY OF RUSSIA. Well, who will take at least read them all?
    1. Buffalo 21 September 2015 22: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This book is rare, only a few have read it. - The specifics of the genre, it is not for everyone. That's why here amateurs report sucked from the finger.
      1. xtur 22 September 2015 10: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        > This book is rare, it was read only by a few. - The specifics of the genre, it is not for everyone. That's why here amateurs report sucked from the finger.

        on the other hand, even amateurs today know about genetic studies that can even be carried out with bone material.
        That's why they are interested in - and what is known about such studies?
    2. xtur 22 September 2015 00: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and the genetic study of burials in Russia, in which the Mongol warriors must have been located, was carried out?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Samors 22 September 2015 11: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Alebor, well, you also tried to interpret the story as obvious as you yourself)) I live in the North Caucasus, going to any local museum we will see household items, weapons and other things of the Scythians, where did the Scythians go? Yes, they just became the future population of this region, dissolved in new generations. Well, you will not hope to argue that they were all put together in a pile and drowned))
  • Idunavs 21 September 2015 12: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Read M. Lomonosov's “Ancient Russian History.” There is an essence.
    1. kalibr 21 September 2015 13: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Lomonosov did not know everything either, nor did Karamzin. Since their time, many new things have been discovered that have greatly changed our ideas about the past. His work is ... more historiography than history.
  • andrew42 21 September 2015 12: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, for about 20 years I believe that the so-called “Batyvo invasion” is a pagan, sorry, Vedic, REACTION, to bring to life a Christianized, fragmented, anticipated Russia. That is, lands where the princes who usurped civil power were covered by Christian law "from God", and at the same time many were managed by moneylenders. This process was clearly shown even by Karamzin, - in riots from Kiev since Izyaslav Yaroslavich’s "fleeing Europe", and so on - until the capture of Kiev by the coalition of Andrei Bogolyubsky (incidentally, he was killed by very colorful comrades with completely "kosher" names a la " Efim Moizovich, "- this is about WHO steered the princes and their good). Thank God, it seems that the dominance of this nightly manuscript delirium about the "evil Tatars" is ending. There he is dear.
  • ism_ek 21 September 2015 13: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: AUTHOR
    If the numerous tumens of the “Mongols” passed through Russia, then the traces would have remained both in the archaeological digs and in the genetics of the local population. But they are not! Although Mongoloid dominant, overwhelming.

    This is not surprising. Here is an example from the XNUMXth century.
    Quote: andrew42
    The Turks of Greece left few traces. They disappeared suddenly and finally in the spring of 1821, not mourned and unnoticed by the rest of the world. Years later, when travelers asked about the origin of the stone ruins, the old people said: “Here stood the tower of Ali Aga. In it the master himself, his harem and his slaves were killed. ” Then it was difficult to believe that once the majority of the Greek population was people of Turkish descent, living in small communities scattered throughout the country, prosperous farmers, merchants and officials whose families did not know another house for many years. As the Greeks said, the moon devoured them. "William St Clair. That Greece Might Still Be Free: The Philhellenes in the War of Independence. - Open Book Publishers, 2008. - S. 1. - ISBN 1906924007, 9781906924003.
  • Petrik66 21 September 2015 13: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is a beautiful site "Alternative History" - and the author and comments on this site will be happy. these people dismiss the official version as being not backed up by any real sources and facts. But their alternative ideas are also not supported by anything. What is the difference7 One version has its followers, the other has its own. If there is no consolidated opinion about the events of the Second World War, then how can one expect any one version of the Mongol - Tatars? Well, there are always some political motives, moreover specific ones, which compel the authors of the Zadon region or the editorial board of the newspaper Pravda to describe the facts from a politically correct point of view. Well, some were waiting for an order, an apartment, just the opportunity not to go to the front, others were waiting in their cells or “offices” for nishtyaks of the 16th century. To create a "relief" of the characters' images, a duel between Peresvet and Chelumbey or 28 Panfilov’s was invented. True or not? The essence of the general course of the war does not change, but it’s more beautiful either Hartman and Rudel (it would seem - Germans, but how they break ...) Some say that before the arrival of the Varangians and other Germans, our ancestors were eating bread and butter, while others wrote that, on the contrary, we were so developed that Europe studied with us. We laugh at the Ukrainians with their Adam-Ukrainian and ancient Ukrainians ..... can not find a comparison? There is a fact that Peter the Great and his father, in a firefight, introduced Euro modernization due to the obvious military - industrial lag of Russia, compared to European competitors. Narva is an example of this. But Stalin and his "bloody gebnya" - without any doubt took the same step - we purchase everything new in the West and begin to build a new army and industry. Let's not be like ancient ukrams
    1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And as our party leaders submitted information about us in the West, it is generally something! Truth wrote - who wants to take it and check it - as the leader of the Leningrad communists, Zhdanov went to England and began to talk about the feat of 28 Panfilov. What they were offered to surrender and one ran, but there was a volley and the heroes executed the traitor. And it was wrong to tell the British so. They are smart! Imagine: 26 or 28 (no matter how many, but few) keep the defense on a large area - right? They can't sit in a bunch - right? But here they are offered to surrender ... Did they agree on the advice and ran straight from the council alone? Are they fools or is he? Because the volley can only be given on command, when people are close to one another. So? That is, there are two discrepancies at once, and hence the conclusion - this is red propaganda, this cannot be, it is lies! Clearly, he wanted the best! But ... all I had to say was that ... when one, one just ran, shots rang out and the coward was killed. And that's it! Everything immediately became real, there are no inconsistencies and everything is OK! Here we were such stupid leaders ... Even the information to submit correctly to foreigners did not know how!
  • srha 21 September 2015 13: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    What to believe - words or deeds? Legends or cemeteries? Where are the burials from the so-called "Battle of Kulikovo"? How many people, horses, property were spoiled there - what is often called "archaeological finds"? Where is all this?
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 14: 38 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      What to believe - words or deeds? Legends or cemeteries? Where are the burials from the so-called "Battle of Kulikovo"? How many people, horses, property were spoiled there - what is often called "archaeological finds"? Where is all this?


      Correctly ! Do not believe anything. There was nothing, in general, quite ... There was no and no. And you, too, are not, and me, and this site. These are all phantoms. One huge falsification. )))
      1. srha 21 September 2015 16: 45 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Do you know the meaning of the word "or"? And what is the difference between a word and a deed, a fairy tale from a fact? But sarcasm does not prove anything except the absence of arguments.
    2. Glot 21 September 2015 14: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What to believe - words or deeds? Legends or cemeteries? Where are the burials from the so-called "Battle of Kulikovo"? How many people, horses, property were spoiled there - what is often called "archaeological finds"? Where is all this?


      Correctly ! Do not believe anything. There was nothing, in general, quite ... There was no and no. And you, too, are not, and me, and this site. These are all phantoms. One huge falsification. )))
  • 1536 21 September 2015 13: 45 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    As if for all this water not to splash out the child. The fact that in Russia in the XII-XIII century. civil strife began understandably. Reasons could be very different, up to the damage of the crops of one brother by another brother during the hunt for wolves, for example.
    There is only one conclusion - the Russian people were under double oppression. On the one hand, local feudal lords, and on the other hand, feudal lords, which are so fascinatingly written in the article. And the Russian princes could not resist them, free their people. This "double oppression" and drove the Russian princes to war for the liberation of lands from tribute, the endless raids of the Horde warriors, their capture in full population, robberies, etc. of things. Why share profit with someone, lose your people, live in fear? So purely socio-economic relations were intertwined with the relations of the struggle against arbitrariness, with the struggle for truth and, ultimately, for the great idea of ​​liberating Russia from the yoke. What is not the struggle for genuine democracy, which was never heard of in the "enlightened Europe" of that time!
    It is wonderful, in my opinion, that no one has disputed recently that the Battle of Kulikovo took place in the 1380 year! It is this date that is still considered the beginning of the liberation of our country from the hated yoke, which ended, in general, in 1480, and finally under Ivan IV the Terrible.
    1. Aposlya 21 September 2015 14: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it has long been disputed as the date, as well as this very action ...
  • Mangel olys 21 September 2015 14: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “Of all the peoples of the world, not one has surpassed the Tatars with the glory and grandeur of conquests. These people are the true ruler of the universe: all others seem to be created to serve him. He is equally the founder and destroyer of empires. The Tatars conquered China twice and still keep it in obedience. They rule over the vast spaces that make up the empire of the Great Mughal. They are the lords of Persia, they are seated on the throne of Cyrus and Gistasp. They conquered Muscovy. Under the name of the Turks, they made huge conquests in Europe, Asia and Africa and dominate three parts of the world. And if we talk about the times more distant, it was from the Tatars that some of the peoples who defeated the Roman Empire arose. What are the conquests of Alexander in comparison with the conquests of Genghis Khan? This victorious people lacked only historians who would glorify the memory of his wonderful exploits. How many immortal deeds are buried in oblivion! This warlike people, occupied only with their present glory, confident in their eternal invincibility, did not at all take care to perpetuate the memory of their past conquests. ”
    statement by Charles Louis de Montesquieu in Persian Letters (1721)
  • Idunavs 21 September 2015 14: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    [quote = Petrik66] There is a wonderful site "Alternative History" - both the author and the comments on this site will be happy. these people dismiss the official version as being not backed up by any real sources and facts. But their alternative ideas are also not supported by anything. [/ Quote
    This is not a reason not to look for our history and truth, since the official version has been imposed on us by others. Where they are good, and we say cabbage soup with bast shoes. Only history shows that they "grabbed" us from us along with their enlightenment, democracy, technological superiority and etc. And they take revenge on us as they can, including rewriting our history for themselves.
    1. Petrik66 21 September 2015 14: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      An alternative story is a story of losers. there is a harsh reality - today here and now. we must understand that Russia is in the ring, our “friends” are China, India, etc. depend on the Mordor of our time - the United States and wait for us to get into a fight, then, to solve our problems by surrendering our interests. And we argue - under what village was the Kulikovo battle ?! I asked a question - how do we differ from Ukrainians with their ancient Ukrainians when we begin to climb into some kind of virtual historical jungle. There was such a person - Heinrich Himler, who was rushing with the ideas of the Aryans, etc. so another person - Adik Hitler ordered him not to make people laugh with excavated shards (such as docks) and said that when the Germans lived in huts, the Greeks had already built the Parthenon and wrote the Iliad. Is the logic clear? Rossi has a huge number of undeniable achievements and one does not have to invent something new, one has to do new. Crimea was taken away - this is history, and who was the first European? Well, there was a monkey.
    2. Glot 21 September 2015 14: 44 New
      • -6
      • 0
      -6
      This is not a reason not to look for our history and truth, since the official version has been imposed on us by others. Where they are good, and we say cabbage soup with bast shoes. Only history shows that they "grabbed" us from us along with their enlightenment, democracy, technological superiority and etc. And they take revenge on us as they can, including rewriting our history for themselves.


      Finding your truth is good, but your story ... It will be more difficult here.
      Imposed, rewritten?
      Who? When? Are there facts pointing to this?
      Do you think that the Kulikovo battle is a fiction? That is, you want to say that our people did not win then? So then, aren't you yourselves, claiming to belittle your People, extorting THIS VICTORY from its history, not believing in THIS GLORIOUS PAST? So who is belittling anyone, and who is rewriting what?
      Oh, something just questions ...)))
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • nivander 21 September 2015 14: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    started for health finished for rest
  • Idunavs 21 September 2015 15: 00 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: Glot
    This is not a reason not to look for our history and truth, since the official version has been imposed on us by others. Where they are good, and we say cabbage soup with bast shoes. Only history shows that they "grabbed" us from us along with their enlightenment, democracy, technological superiority and etc. And they take revenge on us as they can, including rewriting our history for themselves.


    Finding your truth is good, but your story ... It will be more difficult here.
    Imposed, rewritten?
    Who? When? Are there facts pointing to this?
    Do you think that the Kulikovo battle is a fiction? That is, you want to say that our people did not win then? So then, aren't you yourselves, claiming to belittle your People, extorting THIS VICTORY from its history, not believing in THIS GLORIOUS PAST? So who is belittling anyone, and who is rewriting what?
    Oh, something just questions ...)))

    It is unclear what you wanted to say, but wrote about the fact that you yourself need to write your own story. And the facts of the census of history are everywhere, our official history has been written for a long time mainly by Germans and Europe (if you do not know). And the fact of the denial of the Battle of Kulikovo was not in my post. And some excavations of Kostenka and Snegiri refute their entire “crap” in history, this is what concerns us naturally.
  • Gardamir 21 September 2015 15: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of course, Western Russophobes and their small-town hangers-on in Little Russia-Ukraine would like to see a mixture of Asians and Finno-Ugrians in their “yahs”.
    What does it have to do with it? Nowadays, representatives of Finno-Finns are: Finns, Hungarians, Estonians, in Russia these are Mordovians (Erzya, Moksha), Mari (mountain and meadow cheremis). So it may hurt anyone, but most likely we are all Finno-Russians.
    And is it any coincidence that we were approached from the west and called the order, and from the east the horde. maybe who messed up over the prescription of years and these are the same?
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 15: 49 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      It is not clear what you wanted to say, but wrote about the fact that you yourself need to write your story.


      I understood that you did not understand.
      Do you want to write the history of Russia yourself?
      And what does not suit you written by OUR scientists?

      Our official history was written for a long time mainly by Germans and Europe (if you are not in the know).


      No, not in the know. Enlighten please.
      Who exactly, when and in what period? With names, surnames, dates and, so that the fact of rewriting was documented, at the academic level.
      I am pleased to know.
      Only the phrase "this is a well-known fact" or a couple of German, European surnames will not be accepted as proof of correspondence.
      Come on, bring the facts. Or all this will be empty words.
  • Valery-SPB 21 September 2015 16: 12 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Dating from the end of the XNUMXth century, the “Extensive Annalistic Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo” indicates the basic composition of the Horde, both Tatar and Polovtsian, with mercenaries adjoining. Who is it? Basurmane i.e. Muslims (and where from?) Armenians (are Christians by faith?). Fryagi (Italians, obviously Catholics). Circassians (Circassians who lived in the Caucasus before the advent of the Golden Horde). Yasy (one of the Alanian tribes that went to Hungary. The Alans are nomadic tribes of Scythian-Sarmatian origin, who lived in the Azov and Prikavkazie from the XNUMXst century A.D.) The Burtases are Volga tribes (on the banks of the Volga since the XNUMXth century). Was the Horde Islamic or partially Islamized, as the author of the article writes? The author of the annals points to Muslims as having joined mercenaries to the Tatar and Polovtsian armies. Mamaia’s call “we’ll eradicate Christianity and burn the church of God,” describing “the filthy Jagaila” as “the flattering servant of Satan and the devil's accomplice.” “... And the news came from the Horde and to the Christ-loving prince that the Ishmaelite tribes rise to Christians. And who is this? (From the dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron - “The Ishmaelites, the people descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, settled in the desert of Faran, then spread throughout all of northern Arabia - from Egypt to the Persian Gulf and Babylonia, leading a nomadic life. According to the Bible, they are placed in connection with different tribes of Arabia, also with the descendants of Esau; how the merchant and predatory people mix with the Midianites. ”The last pagans exterminated by the Jews). Thus, the author of the chronicle points to the confrontation of the truly Christian Orthodox Russian faith against the faiths of the “wicked”, somehow pagan, Muslim and Catholic. Written in the first quarter of the XNUMXth century, “The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev,” the author, reporting the victory of all Orthodox Christians over the filthy Mamai and the godless Hagarites (Ishmaelites), understands that over Mohammedans (Muslims), he calls the faith of Mamai Hellenic, a synonym for pagan. A fragment of defeat is interesting: “The godless king Mamai, seeing his doom, began to call on his gods: Perun and Salavat, Heraclius and Horse and his great accomplice Mohammed”. Excuse me, what does Perun and Horse have to do with it? What do they have to do with the Basurm faith? To pagan? Yes. Thus, it seems that it was a civil war between Christians and pagans for the establishment of power of one or a combination of other faiths. In fact, about the formation of a single state, held together by one faith.
    The Russian historian Andrei Lyzlov, in the very first historical work on Russia, written in 1692, indicating the gigantic territory up to China, as the Scythian territory and dividing it into four parts, defines the peoples of Russia as "All Hordes." As a matter of fact, pointing to the opinions of certain historians leading the genealogy of the Tatars from the Jewish tribes, the Tatars are descended from the Mongol Tatars, who took the Amazons by the Queen of Talestra as wives of the Amazons during Alexander the Great (Macedonian) period. Aw, where is Mongolia? Lost for centuries.
    1. kalibr 21 September 2015 17: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Or the author did not want to multiply the incomprehensible entities by the names of alien gods, and did not know them, and called what they remembered in Russia. Simple and clear!
  • bujhm 21 September 2015 16: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Rashid Ad Adin !!! It reminds me just like "One Russian" said ... Actually, I would issue the FEDERAL LAW "On the order of annals and historical memory," where I would forbid to use unverified historical documents as primary sources for historical science. To which I include 95% of all the “historical” Chronicles, Zadonshchin, Words about divisions and regiments. To see everything, these “primary sources” were created under the leadership of the Oldenburg-Romanovs to please their version of History. By the way, this fully corresponds to the handwriting of all modern Westerners, who, as we now see, very peculiarly understand the authenticity of history, demolishing monuments and rewriting history. I remind you that no court will accept a document without details as evidence. But historians accept it. Strange. It is necessary to prohibit the politicization of history. Therefore, such a "history" appears as that of Karamzin and beyond, it is not clear what is based on. It is unambiguously critically necessary to revise all not only Russian history, but also world history, with a view to the correspondence of its reliability to historical documents (capitalized DOCUMENTS)
  • ArcanAG 21 September 2015 17: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How did the wild Mongols, who lived almost in primitive conditions, capture almost half the world? The then advanced powers — China, Khorezm, and Russia — crushed under themselves, ravaged the Caucasus, half of Europe, crushed Persia and the Ottoman Turks.

    Thanks to discipline, new tactics and strategies.
    There are many examples of barbarians afflicting states at a higher stage of development.
    The Mongols did not crush the Ottoman Turks. The Turks entered the historical arena during the sunset of the horde.

    However, iron discipline was in all armies.

    About the feudal fragmentation and the accompanying discipline, the author did not hear?

    The Russian compound bow was much more powerful and better than not only the Mongolian simple bow, but also English.

    Mongolian onions were not simple. He, like Russian, was complex. And English was just plain.

    In Mongolia at that time there simply was no production base that could arm and support a large and powerful army. Savage steppe inhabitants living in cattle breeding, hunters in mountain forests, simply could not become metallurgists, professional warriors within one generation.

    And so the Mongols used the production base of the conquered peoples. (c) Kep
    The steppe does not mean savages. Until the 16th century, the main enemy of Russia was the steppe.

    The author ignores written sources, graphic, archeology. And not only European, which he does not trust, but also Russian and Chinese and Central Asian. In the spirit of Fomenko and, by the way, Svidomo Ukrainians rewrites history. But Ukrainians Russophobia can still be understood. Their real history is inextricably linked with the history of the Russian people, and more precisely it is the history of one people. What for the author is not clear.

    The Russians have a great, heroic and tragic story, why drag in some Aryans here?
    By the way, if the Russians are Arias, then it turns out - in the Great Patriotic War, they fought their own with their own?
  • Idunavs 21 September 2015 17: 45 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: Glot
    No, not in the know. Enlighten please.
    Who exactly, when and in what period? With names, surnames, dates and, so that the fact of rewriting was documented, at the academic level.
    I am pleased to know.
    Only the phrase "this is a well-known fact" or a couple of German, European surnames will not be accepted as proof of correspondence.
    Come on, bring the facts. Or all this will be empty words.


    No need to "distort" the words, we are talking about the official world history which unfortunately
    our scientists do not write, and if they do, then it is not taken into account.
    And the German academicians who wrote our history were lacking at all times until the 1917 revolution.
    And I will not “chew” you, due to the fact that you do not need this.
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 20: 28 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      And I will not “chew” you, due to the fact that you do not need this.


      I thought that I won’t hear a clear answer to a simple question. Alas.
      And as I see, you absolutely do not understand anything in the subject. Absolutely.
      Since you don’t even know what our scientists wrote and are writing not only about Russian, but also about world history as a whole.
      So if vskidku, then you can recall at least Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov, and his beautiful book about Dr. Greece. And he is not alone.
      But will they say something to you? You are not in the subject.
      What then to say, if you don’t know anything ?! )))
  • AKS-U 21 September 2015 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everything is very difficult with this battle. She was, but in the wrong place.
    1. Petrik66 21 September 2015 19: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Finally. For a long time we were discussing here, casting a shadow over the wattle fence, planting turuses and divining on the coffee grounds. They had a fight and argued. He wanted to show himself and talked about the clever, the Germans got it, Gumilyov screwed up, well, Karamzin - that’s just a small poop, in short disorder and stagger. And then the elder appeared - OBVIDENCE and explained everything to us.
  • Mishmish 21 September 2015 19: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do you expose the Mongoloid Myths?
    What do you say? Are you talking about heresy? "On September 5, the Russians approached the Don, at the mouth of the Nepryadva River." - What's this? Russian then was not at all that! Have you been? Well, give the source who was then called Russian laughing There's no such thing? So with whom "Russian bow", "Russian army", etc.?
    As the "Russians" Our people under Van the Terrible began to form ... Vanya swept all the "tribes" by himself ....
    By the way .... it’s not accepted to deny the battle at the Kulikovo Pole .... There is a description in the Chronicles (everything that the author writes to a large extent is about this battle) ...
    Brothers what really happened was “science is undisguised” ... Where is this “Kulikovo Field” God knows him ... THAT where it is being celebrated now is a ridiculous place .... Read how it suddenly began to be considered as such laughing
    1. ArcanAG 22 September 2015 15: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, give the source who was then called laughing Russian Is there no such thing? So with whom "Russian bow", "Russian army", etc.?

      The term Russians, as a generalization of the warriors of various Slavic tribes included in his army, was introduced in the XNUMXth century by the Grand Duke Oleg, nicknamed the Prophet. Primary Source - A Tale of Bygone Years.

      Well, the name Kievan Rus, which was before the Moscow kingdom, as it hints.
      1. Mishmish 22 September 2015 18: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "The term Russians, as a generalization of the warriors of various Slavic tribes included in his army, was introduced in the XNUMXth century by Grand Duke Oleg, nicknamed the prophet. The original source is the Tale of Bygone Years."
        You are a FANTASTIC verb! Give a link to this document and where it says "Russian" ....
      2. Aposlya 23 September 2015 06: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ArcanAG
        The term Russians, as a generalization of the warriors of various Slavic tribes included in his army, was introduced in the XNUMXth century by the Grand Duke Oleg, nicknamed the Prophet. Primary Source - A Tale of Bygone Years.


        For some reason, it surfaced for the first time already in the 18th century ... Researchers still break spears - when it was still written ...

        Quote: ArcanAG
        Well, the name Kievan Rus, which was before the Moscow kingdom, as it hints.


        The term "Kievan Rus" itself was first introduced into scientific terminology only in the early Sovdepi at Lunacharsky. Before that, Kiev was called the Kiev table, the Kiev principality.
        1. Mishmish 23 September 2015 17: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, it’s just “clever not comprehensible” that neither “Kievan” nor “Vladimir” Rus could be ... IT was not called that .... This name was accepted by modern historians to name that time, nothing more ...
          By the way ... a person referring to the "Tale of Bygone Years" should probably know that the true "Russian" ... Aryans laughing ... crushing everything for themselves ... in this work, which, as a historical document, is directly written under a big question (and there are NO others) ..
  • What a 21 September 2015 20: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In short, our state really was formed 1000 years ago, the first 300 years with an elite from the Tatars and was called the Golden Horde with the capital Sarai, then a small period of dissension and the dominant elite became Russians, and the capital is Moscow. That's the point.
  • Antipossevino 21 September 2015 20: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "... Chapter 11

    WHOM DMITRY DONSKAY WINS
    ON THE SANDBACK FIELD?
    And what was called
    “BY THE KHAN OF TOKTOMYSH TO MOSCOW”?

    ... when the motley mercenary army is rebellious
    go Murza ran with the advent of a small
    Dmitry’s garden regiment, Mom
    except how to exclaim: "Oh, would be with
    mine, Tatars! ... ”(A.Z. Validi Tugan).

    As we see from all of the above in the previous chapters, the foreigners who made up for us Russians the course of history in a light favorable to them, as well as their henchmen and followers, use a rather simple logical technique. They tell us only a small part of the truth, the most beneficial to them, and hide most of it and mix a huge part of their “course of history”
    a bunch of false information.
    So if you more fully consider and objectively evaluate information and facts about or
    another period of history, it is not difficult to understand where and how the pro-Western propaganda historians have deceived us and continue to deceive us.

    Consider another episode of “Onslaught on the East,” which was also interpreted by Westernist historians as “exactly the opposite.” This episode is known to us from history books and other works on historical topics like the Battle of Kulikovo.
    True, in the course of official history that we inherited from the Romanov ideologists, it is written that the result of this battle was, to put it briefly, "the victory of the oppressed Russians over the Horde Tatars in the struggle for liberation from the Tatar yoke":
    “The Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, the battle of Russian troops led by the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy with the Mongol Tatars, led by the ruler of the Golden Horde Temnik Mamai on Kulikovo Field in 1380
    Moscow led the fight against the Mongol-Tatars for liberation from the domination of the Golden Horde. ... Momai decided to break the growing
    power of Russia, strengthen its dependence on the Horde. ... the Russian army, numbering up to 100-150 thousand people, was distinguished by its homogeneity: they were Muscovites (mainly young people from artisans and peasants, unaccustomed to battle),
    as well as the soldiers of the lands that recognized the power of the Moscow prince,
    Ukrainian and Belarusian troops; ... the crushing defeat of Mamaev’s rati was of great historical importance in the struggle of the Russian and other peoples against the Mongol-Tatar oppression.
    Although it did not lead to the elimination of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia, however, a strong blow was inflicted on the Kulikovo field over the rule of the Golden Horde, accelerating its subsequent
    decay.
    An important consequence of K. b. there was an increasing role of Moscow in the formation of the Russian state ... D. Donskoy for the first time handed over the great reign to his eldest son Vasily without the sanction of the Golden Horde as "his fatherland" ”(15).
    This is information from the works of historians and scientists of the Soviet era, which, in turn, are based on the Romanov “course on the history of Russia”.

    But let’s check, for example, the last two statements from the excerpt from the course of the official “history of the Mongol-Tatars” quoted above - do they correspond to the truth?
    It turns out not at all: these interpreters of history were clearly misleading us, since reliable information remained that “Grand Duke Dmitry (Donskoy. - GE) died on May 19, 1389. In August of the same year
    the ambassador of Toktamysh (Khan of the Golden Horde) Murza Shikhmat solemnly elevated Vasily, the son of Dmitry Donskoy, to the throne of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir (the Moscow principality was then “officially” called) [16, p. 277] ”(38, p. 300).
    Comments, as they say, are unnecessary ... "

    From the book "TATAR HERITAGE" (Moscow, ALGORITHM publishing house 2015, Authors G. Enikeev, Sh. Kitabchy).
  • Antipossevino 21 September 2015 20: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I continue to quote from the book "TATAR HERITAGE":

    "... But the Moscow principality strengthened and acquired a unifying role on Russian lands, again with the direct support of the Great Horde, and long before the Battle of Kulikovo; numerous news were also preserved about this (36), (37), (38) And examples of distortion as a story
    Tatars, and in general the history of the Fatherland in a multitude are given in these books.

    Here we say only that the main lie of the anti-Tatar pro-Western course of history is that, firstly, they say that the Tatars-Hordes “conquered Russia and established the yoke”, and the Russians were a people “conquered and oppressed” by the Tatars-Hordes for almost three centuries .
    A thorough refutation of this basic lie of the Romanov course in Russian history with sufficient arguments is given in the books “The Crown of the Horde Empire” (37) and “Following the Trail of the Black Legend” (38).
    Here we simply note that in fact, as the facts say, the Russians took a direct and active part in both the very establishment of the power of the Golden Horde
    in the territories of Russia and Desht-i-Kypchak, and in the reign of this power.
    And in fact, Russia was saved from destruction by the Crusaders precisely by the forces of the Horde - as
    and Tatars (38). Moreover, the Russians participated in these, from the point of view of pro-Western historians, “crimes of the Tatars-Horde” in large numbers and in various positions, up to and including participation in the work of the Supreme Headquarters of all
    Tatars. Moreover, this “participation of many Russians in the affairs and wars of the Tatars,” as the medieval Catholic missionary reconnaissance Karpini reported in his report, took place long before the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia” (37), (38).
    But all this, of course, was hidden in various ways by anti-Horde historians. After all, these facts completely refute the course of history "about the bad Tatars-Hordes and their slaves - Russian princes."
    Secondly, the lie of official historians regarding the episodes considered in this chapter also lies in the fact that Prince Dmitry Donskoy, they say, “fought against the rule
    Golden Horde. " But, actually, Dmitry Ivanovich, like his grandfather Ivan Kalita, and his father and uncle, who were before him the great princes in Russia, acted precisely in the interests of the Golden Horde ... "

    From the book "TATAR HERITAGE".
    1. Mishmish 23 September 2015 17: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      , and the Russians were a people "conquered and oppressed" by the Tatars-Hordes for almost three centuries.

      Then there were no Russians laughing Ancient Russians are the same Nonsense as Ancient Ukrainians laughing Nobody called himself that. Ali can date the historical documents of those years wherever “Russians” sounded?
  • Idunavs 21 September 2015 21: 14 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: Glot
    And I will not “chew” you, due to the fact that you do not need this.


    I thought that I won’t hear a clear answer to a simple question. Alas.
    And as I see, you absolutely do not understand anything in the subject. Absolutely.
    Since you don’t even know what our scientists wrote and are writing not only about Russian, but also about world history as a whole.
    So if vskidku, then you can recall at least Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov, and his beautiful book about Dr. Greece. And he is not alone.
    But will they say something to you? You are not in the subject.
    What then to say, if you don’t know anything ?! )))

    The Romanov history of Russia was created in the eighteenth century by Bayer, Miller, and Schletser. All purebred Germans, who did not even learn to speak Russian until old age, but, nevertheless, wrote the History of the Russian State.
    It turns out that there were Lomonosov, Tatishchev and many others in the imperial period, Gumilyov, Gusev, Demin and others -
    in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. Neither Lomonosov nor Tatishchev could publish their historical works during their lifetime, they simply were not allowed to do so. Only after death, their works were "creatively processed" and published by the same Bayer, Miller, Schletser and others. L. N. Gumilyov spent his best years in a concentration camp, and Fomenko and
    historians don’t want to pay attention to others for one simple reason ... They are not graduates, but “graduates” themselves, for the most part, have never seen original historical documents and received their “diplomas” by repeating someone’s “authoritative” opinion ”, which no one has proven to anyone, or even
    They considered it necessary to do this. And with you Mr. Troll, who draws conclusions, it’s not clear on what basis and “authoritatively” the person who claims to talk about it no longer intends to. That you are a supporter of a purely official history and don’t want to think, I already understood, I also think that you also a Darwinist, probably to the heap.
    1. Glot 21 September 2015 22: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Lord, what stupidity you have driven into your head out of ignorance ... It’s just terrible.
      But, as kalibr absolutely correctly noted, Fomenkovsky nonsense is for those who have polystyrene in their heads and not their brains.
      Especially about the "original documents" and "diplomas" smiled. )))
      Okay, this is really talking about nothing.
  • VadimSt 21 September 2015 22: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s rare to see such a worthy and informative discussion on the site. fellow tongue angry fool
    Everything is decorum, without insults, insults and a banal "Urya". Nice to read drinks
  • Buffalo 21 September 2015 23: 20 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Let us remember the real warriors of the Russian land who fought on the Kulikovo Field!
    Happy holiday, everyone for whom this day is a holiday.
    And let us, God, be worthy of the memory of the heroes, save your Russia.

    About the battle.
    http://www.kulpole.ru/history/detail.php?SECTION_ID=19&ID=161

    LIST OF HEROES OF THE KULIKOV BATTLE.
    http://www.kulpole.ru/history/detail.php?SECTION_ID=52&ID=45

    Gr. "Alice", "Sky of the Slavs", lyrics / music. K. Kinchev, www.alisa.net
    http://www.playcast.ru/view/1238819/51b1e6944afe3e8c68d6bd1a8f0044bd24e69da0pl
  • Yurrra 22 September 2015 08: 34 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    the history of princely conflicts, only stories about disassembling the local scale among the armed groups of local importance, which we got. In the end, any prince is only a temporary governor with an armed squad to resolve minor local conflicts. Although by the standards of Europe, his squad is quite comparable with the forces of Europe itself, and therefore this armed group of the prince’s forces was considered the country's only possible military force, although it was only one of many, and only an advanced detachment designed to solve the small current tasks of the area, destination. Something like a modern police. Indeed, in the modern world, if you do not know that somewhere else there is an army with tanks, we can well assume that these police units, their squads, are all military units of the country.
  • Yurrra 22 September 2015 08: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And therefore, some city head of police or militia may well consider himself a prince and have a squad that solves problems of local importance, but this is only a local armed detachment and no more. And such princely ratifications of local law and order were taken by Europeans for the power of Russian princes and were described as Rus. And they were only the destinies of the princes that they should keep order there. And they vomited as they could. But when the armed forces of the country began to make them catch up, the Europeans described this internal conflict within the country with the restoration of statehood among the ruined princes as Igo! To the local prince of princes, who was building a navel of land in front of everyone, someone dared to press on his hat and ears, but he did not even dare to utter a laugh! For he knew who had come and why and what would happen to him if he dared to stand in a pose. Therefore, they did their best to help these forces restore law and order among the princes. What in the eyes of the Europeans looked like a betrayal of their own, for they had little understanding of who these troops were and where they came from and why the princes' squads, so sweeping in battle, did not dare to fight with them. Well, the people naturally fell from the places of conflict from under the hand of the princes, who were unbounded in their greatness and conceit. And who wants to live under the tyranny of a tyrannical prince, imagining himself the height of his mind and omniscience